Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


U\o  -5S 


>        % 


'  r  iHif\;rnr 


>    4^ ■ 

http://www.archive.org/details/armedneutralifieOOcarn     , 


n^ 


-^ 


%a3A!Nii-3i^v''      '^OAiivaaii-#      ^^AaviiaiBv^^^'       "^JiiuuN'v-sov^     "^AaaMNa-awv 


BRARYQ^^ 


>- 

■an 


,5MFUNIVFR% 


•/UF.irvi!\'::DfVi., 


v.iflv.UTFirr- 


o 


1 


''V/5iUAlN(l-lWV 


.# 


."H 


^^;OF-CAllF0i?;^      ^^OF-CALIF0%^ 


itni 


.•\WEUfJfVERS/A 


=3 


zsd 


^lOSANCFl^^ 


"<ril30NVSO]^       %a3AINn-3WV 


AWEUHIVERy//) 


^lOSANCElfx^ 

o 


^6'Aavaani'^     >&AavaaiH^        <r'ii3DNVS0i^      ^/^a3AiNn-3W^^ 


-^lUBRARYO^^ 

fiinrl 


"^.i/OJIiVD-jO^ 


,OF-CAUFO/?^ 


^^JAavaaiH^ 


,lWEUNIVER%. 


^lOSANCHfJ-j. 


A\^EUNIVERS-//> 


:^ 


%a3AINIl-3l\V 


^lOSANCElfj-^ 


Z3 


%a3AiNa-3W^^' 


^•UBRARYOCv       ^lUBRARYek, 

irirrl  fiinri 

.^OF-CALIFOff^      ^0FCA1!F0;?^>^ 


3  (  a  $L-^ 

<?     \    >«<     mi. 


.v^^HIBRARYQ<•         ^l-UBRARYQc, 


,\\U  UNlVERS/Zi 


5f- 


J  u_         iXi     f   -< 


THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES 

OF 

1780  AND  1800 


/^ 


Carnegie   Endowment    for    International    Peace 

DIVISION    OF    INTERNATIONAL    LAW 


THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF 
1780  AND  1800 


A  COLLECTION  OF  OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS 
PRECEDED  BY  THE  VIEWS  OF  REPRE- 
SENTATIVE PUBLICISTS 


EDITED   BY 

JAMES   BROV^N   SCOTT 

DIRECTOR 


NEW  YORK 

OXFORD   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

AMERICAN  BRANCH  ;  35  West  32nd  Street 
LONDON,  TORONTO.  MELBOURNE.  AND  BOMBAY 

1918 


COPYRIGHT  1918 

BY    THE 

CARNEGIE    ENDOWMENT  FOR    INTERNATIONAL    PEACE 
Washington,  D.  C. 


Press  of  Byron  S.  Adams 
Washington,  D.  C. 


C  "-J 


Prefatory  Note 

In  President  Wilson's  address  before  Congress  on  February  26, 
1917,  after  recounting  the  relations  between  Germany  and  the  United 
States  and  the  failure  of  diplomatic  means  to  protect  neutral  rights, 
he  stated  that 

"there  may  be  no  recourse  but  to  armed  neutrality,  which  we  shall 
know  how  to  maintain  and  for  which  there  is  abundant  American 
precedent." 

In  addition  to  American  precedent,  which  has  already  been  instanced 
in  the  volume  issued  by  the  Division  entitled  The  Controversy  over 
Neutral  Rights  between  the  United  States  and  France,  lypy-rSoo, 
there  is  European  precedent  for  armed  neutrality;  for  in  1780  and  in 
1800  the  leading  neutral  Powers  of  Europe  entered  into  an  agreement 
to  protect  their  rights  against  belligerent  invasion,  by  force  of  arms  if 
necessary.  The  texts  of  the  agreements  constituting  the  armed  neu- 
trality of  1780  and  of  1800,  together  with  the  orders  putting  them  into 
effect  and  diplomatic  correspondence  bearing  thereon,  are  reproduced 
in  the  present  volume. 

The  originals  of  most  of  these  documents  are  in  foreign  languages. 
English  translations,  wherever  available,  have  been  used,  and  in  other 
cases  English  translations  have  been  made  especially  for  the  present 
occasion.  As  in  the  previous  volume  above  mentioned,  there  is  no 
expression  of  personal  opinion  and  the  matter  herein  contained  is 
issued  in  the  interest  and  for  the  convenience  of  the  public  without 
seeking  to  influence  the  judgment  which  it  may  reach. 

It  is,  however,  very  important  that  the  origin,  nature,  and  effect  of 
the  armed  neutrality  should  be  understood,  and  for  this  purpose  the 
views  of  accredited  American  and  foreign  publicists  dealing  with  this 
matter  have  been  collected  and  are  printed  in  the  first  part  of  this 
volume.  It  should  be  said  that  the  authors  have  been  chosen  not 
merely  for  the  value  of  their  contributions  but  because  they  are  of 
different  nationalities  and  can  be  considered  as  fairly  representative 
of  the  views  of  their  respective  countries,  as  publicists  are  wont  to 
expound  and  to  defend  the  policies  of  their  countries. 


780819 


iv  PREFATORY  NOTE 

The  footnotes  contained  in  the  works  from  which  extracts  have 
been  taken  are,  as  a  rule,  here  reproduced  textually  except  when  they 
point  to  the  sources  where  documents  under  discussion  are  to  be  found. 
In  such  cases  the  convenience  of  our  readers  has  been  consulted  by 
making  the  references  to  the  pages  of  this  book. 

Finally,  it  is  well  to  observe  that  the  major  part  of  the  contents  of 
this  book  has  already  been  issued  as  Pamphlets  Nos.  27  and  28,  by 
the  Division  of  International  Law  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for 
International  Peace.  Those  pamphlets  were  issued  to  meet  a  pressing 
public  demand  for  immediate  information  upon  the  general  subject  of 
armed  neutrality,  and  as  a  consequence  they  do  not  contain  all  the 
matter  that  additional  research  has  enabled  us  to  bring  within  this 
volume.  A  general  revision  of  the  contents  of  the  pamphlets  men- 
tioned has  also  been  made,  both  as  regards  translations  and  as  regards 
verification  of  dates,  citations,  and  statements  of  facts. 

James  Brown  Scott, 
Director  of  the  Divisiofi  of  International  Law. 

Washington,  D.  C. 
April  21,  1917. 


Contents 

PAGE 

List  of  authorities xviii 

Part  I. — Extracts  from  American  and  Foreign  Works  on  International 
Law  concerning  the  Armed  Neutralities  of  1780  and  ISOO 

Alvarez :   Le  Droit  International  Americain    1 

Bergbohm:    Die   Bewaffnete    Neutralitat,    1780-1783.      Eine    Entwickelungs- 

phase   des    Volkerrechts    im    Seekriege 2 

Bluntschli :   Das  Moderne  Volkerrecht  der  Civilisirten   Staten 22 

Boeck,  de :  De  la  Propriete  Privee  Ennemie  sous  Pavilion  Ennemi 29 

-    Boye:  De  Vaebnede  Neutralitetsforbund  et  Avsnit  av  Folkerettens   Historie  46 

Calvo :  Le  Droit  International  Theorique  et  Pratique 69 

Dohm,  von :  Denkwiirdigkeiten  meiner  Zeit ;  oder,  Beitriige  zur  Geschichte 
vom  lezten  Viertel  des  achtzehnten  und  vom  Anfang  des  neunzehn- 
ten  Jahrhunderts  1778  bis  1806 81 

Geffcken : 

Das    Recht   der   Intervention   and    Die    Neutralitat     (in    Holtzendorff's 

Handbuch  des  Volkerrecht) 99 

Le  Droit  International  de  I'Europe 106 

Hall :  The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals 108 

Heffter:   Das  Europiiische  Volkerrecht  der   Gegenwart  auf  den   bisherigen 

Grundlagen     1 10 

—    Katchenovsky :    Prize  Law ;   particularly   with    reference   to   tlie   Duties   and 

Obligations  of  Belligerents   and   Neutrals 116 

■"-    Kleen :  Lois  et  Usages  de  la  Neutralite 132 

Louter,  de :  Het  Stellig  Volkenrecht 143 

Manning :  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Nations 146 

*     Martens:  Le  Centenaire  de  la  Declaration  de  Neutralite  de  1780  (in  Revue 

de  Droit  International  et  de  Legislation  Comparee) 160 

^  Matzen :  Forelaesninger  over  den  Positive  Folkeret 163 

Nys :  Le  Droit  International,  les  Principes,  les  Theories,  les  Faits 172 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Perels  :  Manuel  de  Droit  Maritime  International 183 

Phillimore :  Commentaries  upon  International  Law 189 

Pradier-Fodere :  Traite  de  Droit  International  Public  Europeen  et  Americain  203 

Prittwitz    u.    Gaffron :    Die    bewaffnete    NeutralitJit,    ihre    theoretische    und 

praktische  Bedeutung   206 

Rivier ;  Principes  du  Droit  des  Gens 210 

Trescot :  The  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution 214 

Twiss :  The  Law  of  Nations  considered  as  Independent  Political  Communi- 
ties.    On  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations  in  Time  of  War 218 

Walker :  The  Science  of  International  Law 220 

Wehberg :  Das  Seekriegsrecht  (in  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts) 229 

Westlake :  International  Law,  Part  II,  War 239 

Wharton:  A  Digest  of  the  International  Law  of  the  United  States 241 

Wheaton :    History  of  the  Law  of  Nations  in  Europe   and  America   from 

the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  1842 245 

Woolsey :  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  International  Law 266 

Part  II. — Official  Documents  bearing  on  the  Armed  Neutralities 

OF  1780  AND  1800 

1780,  February  28  (O.  S.).  Declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  regarding 
the  principles  of  armed  neutrality,  addressed  to  the  Courts  of  Lon- 
don, Versailles  and  Madrid 273 

April  3.     Russian    memorandum   containing   a   project    for   an    armed 
neutrality,  presented  to  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands 275 

April  5.     Explanation  requested  of  the  Court  of  Russia  by  the  Court  of 
Sweden  relative  to  the  project  for  an  armed  neutrality 276 

April  17.     Declaration  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  States-General 
of  the  Netherlands  withdrawing  all  treaty  privileges 277 

April  18.     Reply  of  the  King  of  Spain  to  the  declaration  of  the  Em- 
press of  Russia  279 

April  19.    British   instructions   to  war-ships  and  privateers 281 

April  23.     Reply  of  the   Court  of   London  to   the  declaration  of  the 
Empress  nf  Russia    282 


CONTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

1780,  April   24.     Extract    from    the    register   of    resolutions    of    the    States- 
General  of  the  Netherlands  replying  to  the  Russian  memorandum..  283 

April  25.  Reply  of  the  King  of  France  to  the  declaration  of  the 
Empress  of  Russia   284 

April  26.  Declaration  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  States-General 
of  the  Netherlands  indicating  approval  of  the  armed  neutrality. . . .  286 

April  29.  Reply  of  the  Court  of  Russia  to  the  request  of  Sweden  for 
explanation  respecting  the  project  for  an  armed  neutrality 288 

May  8.  Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  regarding  the  neutrality 
of  the  Baltic  Sea.  communicated  to  the  Courts  of  the  belligerent 
Powers     290 

May  19.     Russian  ordinance  concerning  commerce  and   navigation...  291 

May  25.  Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Danish  declaration 
regarding  the  neutrality  of  the  Baltic  Sea 295 

July  4.  Explanatory  article  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark 
relative  to  neutral  trade 295 

July  8.  Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  to  the  Courts  of  London, 
Versailles  and  Madrid 297 

July  9.  Convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Den- 
mark   and    Norway 299 

July  9.  Separate  articles  additional  to  the  convention  for  an  armed 
neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway 305 

July  21.  Declaration  of  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Courts  of  Lon- 
don, Versailles  and  Madrid 307 

July  25.     Reply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  Danish  declaration.  ...  308 

July  27.     Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Danish  declaration....  309 

August  1.  Convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and 
Sweden    311 

August  1.  Separate  articles  additional  to  the  convention  for  an 
armed  neutrality  between   Russia  and   Sweden 317 

August  3.     Reply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  Swedish  declaration  317 

.A-Ugust  4.     Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Swedish  declaration. .  318 


viii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1780,  August  7.     Reply  of  the  Court  of  Spain  to  the  Danish  declaration.  ..  .  320 

September  7.  Declaration  by  which  His  Danish  Majesty  accedes  to 
the  convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Sweden.  321 

September  9.  Declaration  by  which  His  Swedish  Majesty  accedes  to 
the  convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Den- 
mark and  Norway 322 

October  5.  Resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  the  United 
States  acceding  to  the  principles  contained  in  the  declaration  of  the 
Empress  of  Russia 323 

November  7.  Russian  memorandum  to  the  belligerent  Powers  notify- 
ing them  of  the  accession  of  Denmark  and  Norway  and  Sweden  to 
the  system  of  armed  neutrality 324 

November  20.  Resolution  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands 
regarding  their  accession  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality 325 

November  20.  British  additional  instructions  to  the  commanders  of 
war-ships    and    privateers 328 

December  12.  Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Russian  memo- 
randum concerning  the  accesssion  of  Denmark  and  Norway  and 
Sweden  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality 329 

December  20.  Manifesto  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  regarding  rela- 
tions with  the  Netherlands 330 

December  20.  British  order  of  coutici!  granting  reprisals  against  the 
ships,  goods  and  subjects  of  the  Netherlands 334 

December  21.  British  instructions  to  commanders  of  merchant  ships 
and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals 335 

December  31.     Spanish  ordinance  relative  to  the  Danish  flag 345 

1781,  January  4.     Act    by    which    the    .Statcs-Cenera)    of    the    Netherlands 

accede  to  the  conventions  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia 
and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and  Sweden 346 

January  4.  Separate  act  joined  to  the  act  by  which  the  States-General 
of  the  Netherlands  accede  to  the  conventions  for  an  armed  neutral- 
ity between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and 
Sweden    350 

January.  Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  re- 
garding their  accession  to  the  conventions  for  an  armed  neutrality 
between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and  Sweden  351 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGB 

1781,  January.  Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to  the 
belligerent  Powers  regarding  their  accession  to  the  conventions  for 
an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and 
Russia  and  Sweden 352 

January  12.  Extract  from  the  register  of  resolutions  of  the  States- 
General  of  the  Netherlands  regarding  the  system  of  armed  neutrality  353 

January  26.  Netherland  ordinance  concerning  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion      358 

February  15.  British  additional  instruction  to  the  commanders  of 
merchant  ships  and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals.  .  365 

February  28.  Memorandum  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands 
to  the  Court  of  Sweden  demanding  the  support  of  the  armed  neu- 
trality league  in  its  war  with  Great  Britain 366 

<  February  28.  Memorandum  of  the  Court  of  Sweden  for  the  Court 
of  Russia  concerning  the  status  of  the  Netherlands  as  a  belligerent 
and  the  effect  upon  the  armed  neutrality  league 370^ 

Extract  from  a  letter  of  Count  Panin,  Russian  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  H.  Sacken,  Minister  to  Copenhagen,  regarding  the  status 
of  the   Netherlands   as  a  belligerent 374 

Rescript    of    the    Empress    of    Russia    to    Count    Moussin    Pouschkin. 

her  Minister  to  Sweden,  concerning  the  status  of  the   Netherlands  , 

as  a  belligerent  and  the  effect  upon  the  armed  neutrality  league.  .  375 

March  12.  Counter-manifesto  of  the  States-General  vi  the  Nethc- 
lands  regarding  relations  with  Great  Britain 380 

April  20.     British  additional  instructions  to  war-ships  and  privateers..   391 

April  30.  Prussian  declaration  and  ordinance  concerning  navigation 
and   maritime   commerce 391 

May  19.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  by 
whicli  Prussia  accedes  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality 397 

October  9.  Act  of  accession  of  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  to  tlic 
system    of    armed    neutrality 403 

October  9.  Act  signed  by  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  concerning  the 
adoption  of  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  as  universal  rules 
for  the  conduct  of  naval  war 405 

October  30.  .Act  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  accepting  the  accession  of 
the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality.  ..  .  406 


X  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1781,  October   30.     Act   signed   by   the   Empress   of    Russia    concerning   the 

adoption    of    the    principles    of    the   armed   neutrality   as    universal 
rules  for  the  conduct  of  naval  war 409 

Extract  from  an  official  despatch  from  the  Court  of  Denmark  to  M. 
Schumacher,  Charge  d'Affaires  at  St.  Petersburg,  relative  to  the 
operations    of    an    armed    neutrality 410 

November  3.  Prussian  declaration  and  ordinance  concerning  naviga- 
tion      411 

December  5.     Swedish  note  to  Prussia  regarding   Prussia's  accession 

to   the   armed   neutrality 413  -^ 

December  8.  Detailed  elucidation  of  the  Prussian  ordinances  of  April 
30  and  November  3,  1781,  concerning  commerce  and  navigation....  414 

December  17.  Danish  note  to  Prussia  regarding  Prussia's  accession 
to   the    armed   neutrality 417 

1782,  May  2.     Swedish  note  to  Prussia  regarding  Swedish  accession  to  the 

convention  of  May  19,   1781,  between   Russia  and   Prussia,  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation..  419  / 

July  24.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Portugal  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  by  which 
Portugal  accedes  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality 420 

August  7.     Memorial  from  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Empress  of  / 

Russia  regarding  a  general  peace  and  a  code  of  maritime  law 423   ' 

September  7.     Reply  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  to  the  King  of  Sweden  / 

regarding  a  general  peace  and  a  code  of  maritime  law 429  ^ 

December  12.  Austrian  Netherlands  ordinance  concerning  maritime 
regulations    430 

1783,  February  21.     Act  by  which  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  accedes  to 

the    system   of   armed   neutrality 433 

1783-4.  The  signing  of  peace  treaties 436 


1793,  February  22.  Rescript  of  the  King  of  Denmark  to  the  magistrates  of 
the  city  of  Copenhagen  and  other  maritime  cities  of  Denmark  re- 
garding the  conduct  of  his  subjects  engaging  in  trade  and  navigation 
during  the  present  war  (France  v.  Great  Britain  and  the  Nether- 
lands>     436 


CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

1793,  May  25.     Articles  4  and  5  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  be- 

tween   Great    Britain    and    Spain 439 

1794,  March     27.     Convention  between  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Sweden 

for  the  Hbertj'  and   safely  of   Danish   and   Swedish   commerce  and 
navigation    440 

November  19.  Articles  17  and  18  of  the  treaty  of  amity,  commerce 
and  navigation  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of 
America     443 

1797,  February  21.    Articles  10,   11  and  12  of  the  treaty  of  navigation  and 

commerce  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia 445 

1799,  June  11.     Case   of    7  he   Maria,  a   vessel   sailing   under   convoy   of   an 

armed  ship  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  visitation  and  search 446 

1800,  April   10.     Letter  from  Mr.  Merry,  British  Charge  d' Affaires  at  Copen- 

hagen, to  Count  Bernstorff,  Danish  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  regarding  the  right  of  visitation  at  sea 471 

April   19.     Reply  of   Count  Bernstorff  to   Mr.   Merry 474 

July  29.  Note  from  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Envoy  Extraordinary 
of  his  Danish  Majesty,  to  Lord  Granville,  British  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  relative  to  the  capture  of  the  Danish 
frigate  Freya   476 

July  30.    Reply  of  Lord  Grenville  to  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg 478 

August  2.     Reply  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  Lord  Grenville 480 

August  4.     Reply  of  Lord  Grenville  to  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg 481 

August  12.  Note  from  Lord  Whitworth,  British  Minister  at  Copen- 
hagen, to  Count  Bernstorff  relative  to  the  capture  of  the  Danish 
frigate   Freya    482 

August  16.  Reply  of  Count  Bernstorff  to  Lord  Whitworth 483 

August  21.  Reply  of  Lord  Whitworth  to  Count  Bernstorff 485 

August  26.  Reply  of  Count  Bernstorff  to  Lord  Whitworth 487 

August  27.  Reply  of  Lord  Whitworth  to  Count  Bernstorff 489 

August  27.  Declaration  by  which  His  Majesty,  the  Emperor  of  Rus- 
sia, invited  Sweden,  Prussia  and  Denmark  to  conclude  a  conven- 
tion  for  the  reestablishment  of  an  armed  neutrality 489 

August  29.  Preliminary  convention  between  Denmark  and  Great 
Britain   regarding  the  Freya   dispute 492 

August  29.  Decree  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  regarding  sequestration 
of  the  property  of  Englishmen 493 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1800,  September.  On  the  subject  of  the  capture  of  neutral  ships  and  of  the 
project  of  confederacy  supposed  to  exist  in  the  north  against 
Great  Britain   494 

September  17.  Letter  of  the  Spanish  Secretary  of  State  to  the 
Swedish  Minister  regarding  British  violations  of  the  Swedish 
flag    507 

October  22.  Note  of  the  Swedish  Chancellor  to  the  Spanish  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  reply  to  his  letter  regarding  British  violations  of 
the  Swedish  flag 509 

November.     Letter  of  the   Chancellor  of   Sweden  to  the  Minister  of 

Prussia  concerning  British   violations  of  the  Swedish   flag 511  / 

November  7.  Extract  from  the  Gazette  of  the  Court  of  St.  Peters- 
burg regarding  an  embargo  on  British  vessels  in  ports  of  the  Island 
of  Malta 513 

November  16.  First  note  of  Lord  Carysfort,  British  Minister  at 
Berlin,  to  Count  Haugwitz,  Prussian  Minister  of  State,  regarding 
the  occupation  of  Cuxhaven  by  Prussian  troops 513 

November  18.  Second  note  of  Lord  Carysfort  to  Count  Haugwitz  re- 
garding the  occupation  of  Cu.xhaven  by  Prussian  troops 515 

November  18.  Order  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  relative  to  the  em- 
bargo   on    English    vessels 516 

November  20.     Reply  of  Count  Haugwitz  to  Lord  Carysfort 516 

November  23.  Proclamation  of  the  King  of  Prussia  announcing 
the    occupation    of    Ritzebiittel    and    Cuxhaven 518 

December  16.  Explanatory  answer  to  the  observations  on  the  subject 
of  the  capture   of  neutral   ships 519 

December  16.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Sweden  for  the  reestal> 
lishment  of  an  armed  neutrality 531 

December  16.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way for  the  reestablishment  of  an  armed   neutrality 537 

December  18.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  re- 
establishment    of    an    armed    neutrality 544 

December  23.     Swedish   marine    regulations 549 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PAGE 

1800,  December  27.     Note  of   Mr.   Drummond,   British    Minister,   to   Count 

Bernstorff,    Danish    Secretary    of    State    for    Foreign    Affairs,  re- 
garding the  armed  neutrality  league 552 

December  29.  Note  of  the  Spanish  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of 
Stockholm  to  the  Swedish  Chancellor,  in  replj-  to  his  letter  con- 
cerning British  violations  of  the  Swedish  flag 553 

December  31.     Reply  of  Coynt  Bernstorff  to  Mr.  Drummond 554 

1801,  January  14.     British    instructions    to    Lieutenant    General    Trigge    re- 

garding His  Majesty's   forces  in  the  Leeward  Islands 557 

January  14.     Additional  instructions  to  Lieutenant  General  Trigge....  558 

January  14.     British  order  of  council  laying  an  embargo  on  Russian, 

Danish    and    Swedish    ships 558  •^ 

January  15.  Notification  of  Lord  Grenville,  British  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  to  the  Danish  and  Swedish  Ambassadors 
regarding  the   embargo  on   Danish   and   Swedish   ships 559 

January  16.  Reply  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Danish  Envoy  Ex- 
traordinary at  London,  to  the  notification  of  Lord  Grenville  regard- 
ing the  embargo  on  Danish  and  Swedish  ships 561 

January  17.  Reply  of  Baron  Ehrensward,  Swedish  Minister  at  Lon- 
don, to  the  notification  of  Lord  Grenville  regarding  the  embargo  on 
Danish    and    Swedish    ships 563 

January  27.  Note  of  Lord  Carysfort,  British  Minister  at  Berlin,  to 
Count  Haugwitz,  Prussian  Minister  of  State,  regarding  the  armed 
neutrality    league    564 

January  28.     British    orders    of    council    respecting    the    embargo    on 

Russian,  Danish  and  Swedish  vessels 568  ^ 

January  28.  British  orders  of  council  respecting  payments  to  sub- 
jects of  Russia,   Sweden  and  Denmark 570 

February  1.  Note  of  Lord  Carysfort  to  Count  Haugwitz  regarding 
relations   between   Great   Britain   and   Russia 570 

February  2.  Speech  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  to  both  houses  of 
Parliament    572 

February  7.     Swedish    protest   on    the    subject   of    the    alleged    illegal  y 

proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  British  in  the  harbor  of  Barcelona.  .  574 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PACE 

1801,  February  12.     Reply  of  Count  Haugwitz  to  Lord  Carysfort 578 

February  23.  Russian  proclamation  interdicting  the  transportation 
of  merchandise  through   Prussia 582 

February  23.  Note  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  the  British  Minister 
regarding  the  embargo  on   Danish   vessels 583 

March  4.  Note  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  Lord  Hawkesbury, 
British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  regarding  the 
embargo   on    Danish    vessels 585 

March  4.  Note  of  Baron  Ehrensward  to  Lord  Hawkesbury  regard- 
ing the  embargo  on  Swedish  vessels 585 

March  7.     Reply  of  Lord  Hawkesbury  to  Baron  Ehrensward 588 

March  28.  Manifesto  of  Prince  Charles  regarding  the  Danish  occu- 
pation of  the   city   of    Hamburg 589 

March  29.  Proclamation  of  the  Senate  of  Hamburg  regarding  the 
Danish  occupation   of  the  city 590 

March  29.  Ordinance  of  the  King  of  Denmark  laying  an  embargo 
upon   English   vessels 591 

March  30.  Declaration  of  the  King  of  Prussia  to  the  Royal  and 
Electoral  College  at  Hanover  and  to  the  commanders  of  the  Han- 
overian troops  regarding  measures  to  be  taken  in  defense  of  the 
armed   neutrality    592 

April  3.  Instructions  from  the  British  Admiralty  to  Admiral  Dickson 
regarding  the  seizure  of  Swedish  vessels  in  the  harbor  of  Oster 
Risoer    594 

June  17.  Convention  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to 
neutral  trade    595 

October  20.  Additional  articles  and  declaration  to  the  convention 
of  June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to 
neutral    trade    604 

October  23.  Act  of  accession  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway 
to  the  convention  of  June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia  relative   to  neutral   trade 006 

1802,  March  30.     Act  of  accession  of  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  convention 

of   June    17,    1801,   between    Great    Britain   and    Russia    relative   to  / 

neutral    trade    ( footnote)  606 


CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

1803,  May  4.     Ordinance  of  the  King  of  Denmark  regulating  the  conduct 

and  defining  the  obligations  of  the  merchants  and  mariners  of  his 
States  in  time  of  war  between  other  maritime  Powers 609 

June.     Declaration  of  neutrality  of  the  RepubHc  of  the  Seven  Islands.  .  616 

June  3.  Decree  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  concerning  the 
observance  of  neutrality  in  his   States 617 

July  9.  Proclamation  of  the  Prince  and  President  of  the  Senate  of 
the  Republic  of  the  Seven  Islands  containing  regulations  governing 
the  conduct  of  his  subjects  with  regard  to  the  maintenance  of  neu- 
trality     618 

July  25.  Convention  between  Great  Britain  and  Sweden  explaining 
Article  11  of  the  treaty  of  1661 620 

August  7.     Ordinance  of  Austria  on  the  observance  of  neutrality....  623 

1804,  January  21.     New    regulations    of    Sweden    regarding    commerce   and 

navigation  with  foreign  maritime  Powers  in  time  of  war 629 

1807,  November  7.  Declaration  by  which  the  Emperor  of  Russia  severs 
diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Britain  and  proclaims  anew  the 
principles  of  the  armed  neutrality 635 

December  18.  Extract  from  the  British  reply  to  the  declaration  by 
which  the  Emperor  of  Russia  severed  diplomatic  relations  with 
Great  Britain  and  proclaimed  anew  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality    638 

Appendix 

1780,  February  28.  Declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  regarding  the 
principles  of  armed  neutrality,  addressed  to  the  Courts  of  London, 
Versailles   and   Madrid    (French    text) 641 

July  8.  Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  to  the  Courts  of  London, 
Versailles   and   Madrid    (French   text) 642 

July  9.  Convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Den- 
mark and  Norway    (French   text) 644 

July  9.  Separate  articles  additional  to  the  convention  for  an  armed 
neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway  (French  text)  649 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

1780,  July  21.     Declaration  of  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Courts  of  London, 

Versailles  and   Madrid    (French   text) 651 

August  1.  Convention  for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and 
Sweden    (French  text) 652 

August  1.  Separate  articles  additional  to  the  convention  for  an  armed 
neutrality  between  Russia  and  Sweden  (French  text) 656 

November  7.  Russian  memorandum  to  the  belligerent  Powers  noti- 
fying them  of  the  accession  of  Denmark  and  Norway  and  Sweden 
to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality  (French  text) 657 

1781,  January.     Declaration   of   the   States-General  of  the   Netherlands  re- 

garding their  accession  to  the  conventions  for  an  armed  neutrality 
between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and  Sweden 
(French    text)     657 

January.  Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to 
the  belligerent  Powers  regarding  their  accession  to  the  conven- 
tions for  an  armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and 
Norway,   and    Russia    and    Sweden    (French   text) 658 

May  19.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  by  which 
Prussia  accedes  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality  (French  text)..  659 

October  9.  Act  of  accession  of  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  to  the 
system  of  armed  neutrality   (French  text) 665 

1782,  July   24.     Convention    between    Russia    and    Portugal    for    the    main- 

tenance of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  by  which  Portugal 
accedes  to  the  system  of  armed  neutrality  (French  text) 66^ 

1783,  February  21.     Act  by  which  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  accedes  to 

the  system  of  armed  neutrality   (French  text) 669 

1800,  December  16.     Convention   between   Russia   and   Sweden   for  the   re- 
establishment  of  an  armed  neutrality   (French   text) 672 

December  16.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway 
for  the  reestablishment  of  an  armed  neutrality  (French  text) 677 

December  18.  Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  re- 
establishment  of  an  armed  neutrality    (French  text) 683 


CONTENTS  xvii 

PAGE 

1801,  June   17.     Convention   between    Great   Britain   and   Russia   relative   to 

neutral   trade    (French   text) 688 

October  20.  Additional  articles  and  declaration  to  the  convention  of 
June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to  neutral 
trade    (French    text) 695 

October  23.  Act  of  accession  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway 
to  the  convention  of  June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia  relative  to  neutral  trade   (French  text) 697 


List  of  Authorities  Quoted  and  Cited  in  this  Volume 

Aall,  Jacob.  Erindringer  som  bidrag  til  Norges  historic  fra  1800  til  1815. 
Second  edition,  enlarged  and  annotated  by  Christian  C.  A.  Lange.  With  a 
portrait  of  the  author  and  his  biography  by  Judge  J.  C.  Aall.  Christiania, 
J.  W.  Cappelen,  1858-59.    776  pp. 

Acton,  Thomas  H.  Privy  Council  Cases.  Reports  of  cases  before  the  Lords 
Commissioners  of  Appeals  in  Prize  Causes  (180^1811).  Boston,  1853. 
2  vols. 

Albedyhll,  Baron  d'.  Nouveau  memoire  ou  precis  historique  sur  I'association 
des  Puissances  neutres  connue  sous  le  nom  de  la  neutralite  armee,  avec  des 
pieces  justificatives.  (In  Recueil  de  memoires  et  autres  pieces  authentiques 
relatives  aux  affaires  de  I'Europe,  et  particulierement  celles  du  Nord,  pendant 
la  derniere  partie  du  XVIII°»e  siecle.    Vol.  1,  Stockholm,  1798.) 

Albrecht,  Erich.  Die  Stellung  der  Vereinigten  Staaten  von  Amerika  zur  bewaff- 
neten  Neutralitat  von  1780.     (In  Zeitschrift  fiir  Volkerrecht.     Vol.  6,  1912.) 

Allen,  C.  F.     Slaget  pas   Kjoebenhavns   red.     (In   Dansk   folkekalender,   1842.) 

Alvarez,  Alejandro.  Le  droit  international  americain.  Paris,  A.  Pedone,  1910. 
386  pp. 

Annual  Register,  The.     London,  1758  to  date.     In  progress. 

Ascher,  C.  W.  Beitrage  zu  einigen  Fragen  iiber  die  Verhaltnisse  des  Seehandels 
in  Kriegszeiten,  1854. 

Austrian  Regulations.     Dienst-Reglement  fuer  die  k.  k.  Kriegsmarine  von  1879. 

Azuni,  D.  A.     Le  droit  maritime  de  I'Europe.    Paris,  an  XIII-1805.    2  vols. 

Bergbohm,  Carl.  Die  bewaffnete  neutralitat,  1780-1783.  Eine  Entwickelungs- 
phase  des  volkerrechts  im  seekriege.     Berlin,   1884.     290  pp. 

Bluntschli,  Johann  Caspar.     Le  droit  international  codifie.     Translated  from  the 

German  by  M.  C.  Lardy.    Second  edition.    Paris,  1874.    Fifth  edition.    Paris, 

1895. 
.     Das   moderne   volkerrecht   der   civilisirten    Staten    als   rechtsbuch    dar- 

gestellt.     Third   edition,   revised    and    enlarged.      Nordlingen,    C.    H.    Beck, 

1878.     541  pp. 

Boeck,  CHiarles  de.  De  la  propriete  privee  ennemie  sous  pavilion  ennemi.  Paris, 
G.  Pedone-Lauriel,  1882.     764  pp. 

Bonfils,  Henry.     Lehrbuch  des  volkerrechts.     Third  edition.     Berlin,  1904. 

Boye,  Thorvald.  De  vaebnede  neutralitetsforbund,  et  avsnit  av  folkerettens 
historic.     Christiania,  Groendahl  &  Seen,  1912.     360  pp. 

British  and  foreign  state  papers.     London.  1841  to  date.     In  progress. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xix 

Biisch,  Johann   Georg.     Grundriss  einer  Geschichte  der  merkwiirdigsten   Welt- 

hjindel  neurer  zeit.    Third  edition.    Hamburg,  1796. 

.     Samtliche  Schriften.     Vienna.  1815. 

.     Ueber  das  Bestreben  der  Volker  neurer  Zeit  einander  in  ihrem   See- 

handelrecht  wehe  zu  thun.    Vermehrte  und  ganz  umgearbeitete  Auflage  der 

Abhandlung:    Von    der   Zerriittung   des    Seehandels.      Hamburg,    Benjamin 

Gottlieb  Hoffmann,   1800. 

Volkerseerecht.     In    vorziiglicher    Hinsicht    auf    einen    dem    Friedens- 


schlusse  zwischen  Deutschland  und  Frankreich  anzukniipfenden  Handlungs- 
traktat.     Reutlingen,  Macken  und  Compagnie,  1801. 

Bynkershoek,  C.  van.  Qusestionum  juris  publici  libri  duo,  quorum  primus  est 
De  rebus  bellicis,  secundus  De  rebus  varii  argumenti.  Second  edition. 
Lugduni  Batavorum,  1751. 

Calvi.     Curiosita  storiche  e  diplomatiche  del  secolo  decimottavo.     Milan,   1878. 

Calvo,  Carlos.  Le  droit  international  theorique  et  pratique ;  precede  d'un  ex- 
pose historique  des  progres  de  la  science  du  droit  des  gens.  Fifth  edition, 
revised  and  completed  by  a  supplement.     Paris,  A.  Rousseau,  1896.     6  vols. 

.     Recueil    complet    des    traites,    conventions,    capitulations,    armistices    et 

autres  actes  diplomatiques  de  tous  les  Etats  de  I'Amerique  latine  compris 
entre  le  golfe  du  Mexique  et  le  cap  de  Horn,  depuis  I'annee  1493  jusqu'a  nos 
jours,  etc.    Besangon,  1862-69.     11  vols. 

Cambridge  Modern  History,  The;  planned  by  the  late  Lord  Acton edited 

by  A.  W.  Ward,  G.  W.  Prothero,  Stanley  Leathes.  Cambridge,  The  Uni- 
versity Press,  1902-. 

Cantillo,  A.  del.  Tratados,  convenios  y  declaraciones  de  paz  y  de  comercio  que 
han  hecho  con  las  potencias  estranjeras  los  monarcas  espanoles  de  la  casa 
de  Borbon,  desde  el  aiio  de  1700  hasta  el  dia.     Madrid,  1843. 

Castera,  Jean  H.  Histoire  de  Catherine  II,  imperatrice  de  Russie.  Paris,  F. 
Buisson,   1800.     2  vols. 

Castro,  Jose  Ferreira  Borges  de.  Collecqao  dos  tratados,  convengoes,  contratos 
e  actos  publicos.  celebrados  entre  a  coroa  de  Portugal  e  as  mais  potencias 
desde  1640  ate  ao  presente,  compilados,  coordenados  e  annotados.  Lisbon, 
1856-58.    8  vols. 

Cauchy,  Eugene  Frangois.  Le  droit  maritime  international  considere  dans  ses 
origines  et  dans  ses  rapports  avec  les  progres  de  la  civilisation.  Paris, 
Guillaumin  et  c'*,   1862.     2  vols. 

.     Du    respect   de    la   propriete   privee   dans   la   guerre   maritime.      Paris, 

Guillaumin  et  c'e,  1866.     155  pp. 

Chalmers,  G.  A  collection  of  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  other  Powers. 
London,  1790.    2  vols. 

Clarendon.  The  Life  of  Edward  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Lord  High  Chancellor  of 
England,  and  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford.  Containing,  an 
account  of  his  life  from  his  birth  to  the  Restoration  in  1660.  Written  by 
himself.  Printed  from  his  original  manuscripts,  given  to  the  University  of 
Oxford  by  the  heirs  of  the  late  Earl  of  Clarendon.     Oxford,  1759.     3  vols. 

Clausen,  Henri  Frederic  Chretien.  Recueil  de  tous  les  traites,  conventions, 
memoires  et  notes  conclus  et  publics  par  la  couronne  de  Dannemarc  depuis 
I'avenement  au  throne  du  roi  regnant  jusqu'a  I'epoque  actuelle  ou  des 
I'annee  1766  jusqu'en  1794  inclusive.  Berhn,  Imprimerie  de  Jean  Frederic 
Unger,  1796. 


XX  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Clercq,  Alexandre  Jehan  Henry  de.  Recueil  des  traites  de  la  France,  public 
sous  les  auspices  du  Ministere  des  affaires  etrangeres.    Paris,  1864-. 

Code  des  prises,  ou  recueil  des  edits,  declarations,  lettres  patentes,  arrets, 
ordonnances,  reglements  et  decisions  sur  la  course  et  I'administration  des 
prises  depuis  1400  jusqu'a  present.    Officiel.     Paris,  1784.    2  vols. 

Collection  of  public  acts  and  papers  relating  to  the  principles  of  armed  neu- 
trality, A.     London,   1801. 

Collection  of  state  papers  relative  to  the  war  against  France  now  carrying  on 
by  Great  Britain  and  the  several  other  European  Powers,  A.  London, 
printed  for  J.  Debrett,  1794-1802.     11  vols. 

Collection  of  Treatys,  etc.,  A  general.     Second  edition.     London,  1732.     4  vols. 

Cour  de  Russie,  il  y  a  cent  ans,  La.     See  Turgenev. 

Cranch,  William.  Reports.  Cases  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
1801-15.    9  vols. 

Croke,  A.  Remarks  on  Mr.  Schlegel's  work  upon  the  visitation  of  neutral 
vessels  under  convoy.    London,  1801. 

Cussy,  F.  de.  Phases  et  causes  celebres  du  droit  maritime  des  nations.  Leipzig, 
1856.    2  vols. 

Danske  Tractater  efter  1800.     Copenhagen,  1871. 

Debrett.     See   Collection  of  state  papers,  etc. 

Despagnet,  Frantz  Clement  Rene.  Cours  de  droit  international  public.  Second 
edition,  1899. 

Diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  Revolution.     See  Sparks. 

Dodson,  John.  Reports  of  Cases  in  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  [England, 
1811-22].    2  vols.     Reprinted  in  English  Admiralty  Reports,  vol.  6. 

Dohm,  Christian  W.  von.  Denkwiirdigkeiten  meiner  Zeit;  oder,  Beitrage  zur 
geschichte  vom  lezten  viertel  des  achtzehnten  und  von  anfang  des  neun- 
zehnten  Jahrhunderts  1778  bis  1806.  Lemgo,  Meyer;  Hannover,  Helwing, 
1814-19.     5  vols. 

.     Materialien    zur    Statistik    und    neuesten    Staaten-geschichte.      Lemgo, 

1775-85. 

Doniol,  Henri,  i.  e.,  Jean  Henri  Antoine.  Histoire  de  la  participation  de  la 
France  a  I'etablissement  des  Etats-Unis  d'Amerique.  Correspondance  diplo- 
matique et  documents.     Paris,  Imprimerie  nationale,   1886-92.     5  vols. 

Drouyn  de  Lhuys.  Les  neutres  pendant  la  guerre  d'Orient.  Paris,  1868. 
(Extrait  du  compte-rendu  de  I'Academie  des  Sciences  morales  et  politiques 
de  rinstitut  de  France.  Seances  et  travaux.  Comptes  rendus  par  M. 
Charles  Verge,  sous  la  direction  de  M.  Jules  Simon.     Paris.) 

Duer,  John.  Law  and  practice  of  marine  insurance.  New  York,  1845-46. 
2  vols. 

Dufriche-b'oulaines,  F.  N.  Code  des  prises,  et  du  commerce  de  terre  et  de 
mer Paris,  Imprimerie  de  Valade,  an  XlII-1804.    2  vols. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxi 

Dumont,  J.  Baron  de  Carlscroon.  Corps  nniversel  diplomatique  du  droit  des 
gens,  contenant  un  recueil  des  traitez  d'alliance,  de  paix,  de  treve,  etc., 
faits  en  Europe  depuis  Charlemagne  jusqu'au  present  [A.  D.  800-1731]. 
Amsterdam,  1726-31.     8  vols. 

Dupuis,  Charles.  Le  droit  de  la  guerre  maritime  d'apres  les  doctrines  anglaises 
contemporaines.     Paris,   A.   Pedone,    1899.     476  pp. 

Eggers,  Christian  Ulrich  Detlev.     Actenstiikke  iiber  das  misverstiindnis  zwischen 

Djinnemark  und   England  und  die   Nordische  neutralitets-convention,   hrsg. 

mit  einer  rechtlichen  erorterung  des  streitpunkts.     Copenhagen  and  Leipzig, 

Arntzen  and  Hartier,  1801.    280  pp. 
.     Denkwiirdigkeiten  aus  dem  Leben  des  konigl.  diinischen  Staatsministers 

Andreas  Peter  Grafen  von  Bernstorf.     Copenhagen,  1800. 

Eichelman,  O.  Der  bewafFnete  Neutralitatsbund  Russlands  vom  Jahre,  1780. 
(In  Russian  Review  edited  by  C.  Rottger.     Vol.  16,  St.  Petersburg,  1880.) 

Eichhorn,  Johann  Gottfried.  Geschichte  der  drei  letzten  Jahrhunderte.  Third 
edition.     Hanover,  1817-18.     6  vols. 

Elliot,  J.  The  American  diplomatic  code,  embracing  a  collection  of  treaties 
and  conventions  between  the  United  States  and  foreign  Powers  from  1778 
to  1834.  With  an  abstract  of  important  judicial  decisions  on  points  con- 
nected with  our  foreign  relations.  Also,  a  concise  diplomatic  manual  con- 
taining a  summary  of  the  law  of  nations.     Washington,  1834.    2  vols. 

.  Diplomatic  code  of  the  United  States  of  America,  embracing  a  collec- 
tion of  treaties  and  conventions  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
Powers   from  the  year  1778  to   1827.     Washington,   1827. 

Fauchille.  Paul.  La  diplomatic  frangaise  et  la  ligue  des  neutres  de  1780 
(1776-1783).     Paris,  G.  Pedone-Lauriel,  1893.    619  pp. 

Fiore,  P.     Diritto  pubblico  internazionale.     Milan,   1865. 

.     Nouveau  droit  international  public  suivant  les  besoins  de  la  civilisation 

moderne.  Translated  from  the  Italian,  annotated,  preceded  by  an  historical 
introduction  and  followed  by  an  analytical  and  alphabetical  index  by 
P.  Pradier-Fodere.     Paris,  1869.    2  vols. 

Flassan.  Jean  B.  G.  de  R.  de.  Histoire  generale  et  raisonnee  de  la  diploma- 
tie  frauQaise,  ou  de  la  politique  de  la  France  depuis  la  fondation  de  la 
monarchic  jusqu'a  la  fin  du  regne  de  Louis  XVI,  avec  des  tables  chrono- 
logiques  de  tous  les  traites  conclus  par  la  France.  Second  edition,  revised 
and  enlarged.     Paris,   Trei  ttel   et  Wiirtz,    1811.     7  vols. 

Foster,  John  W.  A  century  of  American  diplomacy;  being  a  brief  review  of 
the  foreign  relations  of  the  United  States,  1776-1876.  Boston  and  New 
York,  Houghton,  MifHin  and  Company,  1900.     497  pp. 

Fox,  Charles  James.  Memorials  and  correspondence  of  Charles  James  Fox. 
Edited  by  Lord  John  Russell.     London,  R.  Bentley,   1853-57.     4  vols. 

Friis,  Aage.  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff  og  Ove  Hoegh  Guldberg.  Copenhagen, 
1899. 

Galiani,  F.  De'  doveri  de'  principi  neutrali  verso  i  principi  guerregianti  e  di 
questi  verso  i  neutrali.     Naples,  1782.     1  vol. 

Garden,  Comte  de.  Histoire  generale  des  traites  de  paix  et  autres  transactions 
principales  entre  toutes  les  puissances  de  I'Europe,  depuis  la  paix  de  West- 
phalie ;  ouvrage  comprenant  les  travaux  de  Koch,  Schoell,  etc.,  entierement 
refondus  et  continues  jusqu'a  ce  jour.     Paris.     13  vols. 


xxii  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Gareis.  Institutionen  des  volkerrechts ;  ein  kurzgefasstes  lehrbuch  des  positiven 
volkerrechts  in  seiner  geschichtlichen  entwicklung  und  heutigen  gestaltung. 
Second  edition.     Giessen,  E.  Roth,   1901.     319  pp. 

Gefltcken,     F.     Heinrich.      Das     recht    der    intervention.      (In    Handbuch    des 

volkerrechts.     Vol.  4,  Hamburg,  1889.) 
.     Das  seekriegsrecht.     (In  Handbuch  des  volkerrechts.    Vol.  4,  Hamburg, 

1889.) 

Die    neutralitiit.      (In    Handbuch    des    volkerrechts,    Vol.    4,    Hamburg, 


1889.) 

— .    Zur  Geschichte  des  Orientalischen  Krieges  1854-56.     Berlin,  1881. 
— .     See  also  Heffter. 


Gessner,  L.  Le  droit  des  neutres  sur  mer.  First  edition,  Berlin,  1865.  Second 
edition,  1876. 

Godchot.    Les  neutres.     Algier,  1891. 

Goertz,  Johann  Eustach  von.  Count.  Memoire  ou  precis  historique  sur  la  neu- 
tralite  armee  et  son  origine,  suivi  de  pieces  justificatives.  Basle,  1801. 
Paris,   1804. 

.     The  secret  history  of  the  armed  neutrality.     Together  with  memoirs, 

official  letters  and  state-papers,  illustrative  of  that  celebrated  confederacy. 
Never  before  published.  Written  originally  in  French  by  a  German  noble- 
man. Translated  by  A.  .  .  .  H.  .  .  .  London :  Printed  for  J. 
Johnson  and  R.  Folder,  1792.     260  pp. 

Guichard.  Code  des  prises  maritimes  et  des  armements  en  course.  Paris, 
year  VII.     2  vols. 

Hall,   William    Edward.     International    Law.      Second    edition.      Oxford,    1884. 

" .     The   rights   and    duties   of   neutrals.      London,    Longmans,    Green   and 

Company,  1874.     210  pp. 

Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts.     Edited  by  Franz  von  HoltzendorflF.    Berlin-Ham- 
burg, 1885-89.    4  vols. 
.     Edited  by  Dr.  Fritz  Stier-Somlo.    Berlin,  Stuttgart,  Leipzig,  1912-. 

Hautefeuille,  L.  B.     Des  droits  et  des  devoirs  des  nations  neutres  en  temps  de 

guerre  maritime.     Paris,  1848-49.     4  vols. 
.     [Same.]     Second  edition.     Paris,  1858.     3  vols.     Third  edition.     Paris, 

1868. 

Histoire  des  origines,  des  progres  et  des  variations  du  droit  maritime 


international.      Second   edition.     Paris,    1869. 
-^ — .     Proprietes  privees  des  sujets  belligerants  sur  mer.     Paris,  1860. 


Heffter,  August  Wilhelm.  Le  droit  international  public  de  I'Europe.  Trans- 
lated by  Jules  Bergson.  New  edition  revised  and  enlarged  after  the  death 
of  the  translator,  by  the  author.     Berlin  and  Paris,  1866. 

.     Le    droit    international    de    I'Europe.      Translated    by    Jules    Bergson. 

Fourth  edition,   French,  enlarged  and  annotated  by  F.   Heinrich   Geffcken. 
Berlin  and   Paris.   1883. 

Das    Europaische    Volkerrecht    der    Gegenwart    auf    den     bisherigen 


Grundlagen.      Edited    by    F.    Heinrich    Geffcken.      Eighth    edition,    Berlin, 
H.  W.  Miiller.  1888.     505  pp. 

Hennings,  August  Adolph  Friedrich.  Sammlung  von  staatsschriften,  die, 
wiihrend  des  seekrieges  von  1776  bis  1783,  sowol  von  den  kriegfiihrenden, 
als  auch  von  den  neutralen  machten.  offentlich  bekannt  geinacht  worden 
sind ;  in  so  weit  solche  die  freiheit  des  handels  und  der  schiffahrt  betreffen. 
Hrsg..    und    mit    einer    abhandlung    iiber    die    neutralitiit    und    ihre    rechte, 

insonderhcit    bey    einem    scekriege,    begleitet    von    August    Hennings 

Altona,  J.  D.  A.  Eckhardt.  1784-85.    2  vols. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxiii 

Hertslet's  Commercial  Treaties;  a  complete  collection  of  the  treaties  and  con- 
ventions, and  reciprocal  regulations  at  present  subsisting  between  Great 
Britain  and  foreign  Powers  :  and  of  the  laws,  decrees,  orders  in  council,  etc., 
concerning  the  same;  so  far  as  they  relate  to  commerce  and  navigation,  the 
slave  trade,  post-office  communications,  copyright,  etc. :  and  to  the  privileges 
and  interests  of  the  subjects  of  the  high  contracting  parties.  Compiled 
from  authentic  documents.    London,  1827-. 

Hertzberg,  Comte.  Recueil  des  deductions,  manifestes,  declarations,  traites  et 
autres  actes  et  ecrits  publics  qui  ont  ete  rediges  et  publics  par  la  cour  de 
Prusse  (depuis  1756  jusqu'a  1790).  Vols.  1,  2.  Berlin,  1788,  1789;  Vol.  3, 
Hamburg,  1795. 

Hold  von  Ferneck,  Alexander  Freiherrn.     Die  Kriegskonterbande.     Wien,  1907. 

Holm,  E.     Danmark-Norges  udenrigske  historic,  1791-1807.     Copenhagen,   1875. 

2  vols. 
.     Om  Danmarks   deltagelse  i    forhandlingene  om   en   vaebnet   neutralitet 

fra  177&-1780.     (In   [Danish]   Historisk  Tidsskrift,  Illr.,  vol.  5,  p.  5.) 

Holtzendorff,  Franz  von.  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts.  Berlin-Hamburg,  1885- 
1889.     4  vols. 

Hiibner,  M.  De  la  saisie  des  batiments  neutres,  ou  du  droit  qu'ont  les  nations 
belligerantes  d'arreter  les  navires  des  peuples  amis.    The  Hague,  1759. 

Jacobsen,  F.  J.  Laws  of  the  sea.  with  reference  to  maritime  commerce,  during 
peace   and  war.     From   the   German,   by  William    Frick.     Baltimore,    1818. 

.     Seerecht  des   Friedens   und   des    Krieges   in    Bezug  auf   die   Kauffahr- 

teischiffahrt.     Altona,  1815. 

.     Versuch  eines   Commentars  zu  den  Russischen   Beschwerden   iiber  die 

Beeintrachtigung   des    Russischen    Handels    durch    England.      Altona,    1808. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  The  writings  of.  Collected  and  edited  by  Paul  Leicester 
Ford.    New  York,  London,  1898. 

Jenkins,  Sir  L.     Life  and  correspondence.     See  Wynne. 

Jenkinson,  C.  A  collection  of  all  the  treaties  of  peace,  alliance,  and  com- 
merce, between  Great  Britain  and  other  Powers,  from  the  treaty  signed  at 
Munster  in  1648  to  the  treaties  signed  at  Paris  in  1783,  to  which  is  pre- 
fixed a  discourse  on  the  conduct  of  the  Government  of  Great  Britain  in 
respect  to  neutral  nations.     London,  1785.     3  vols. 

Johnstone,  Munro-Butler.  Handbook  of  Maritime  Rights  and  the  Declaration 
of  Paris  considered.     London,  1876. 

Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress.     Washington,   1810. 

Kaltenborn,  Karl  von.  Grundsatze  des  praktischen  europaischen  Seerechts, 
l)esonders  im  Privatverkehre,  mit  Riicksicht  auf  alle  wichtigeren  Particular- 
rechte.    Berlin,  1851.    2  vols. 

Kapp.  Friedrich  der  Grosse  und  die  Vereinigten  Staaten  von  Amerika.  Mit 
einem  Anhang :  Die  Vereinigten  Staaten  und  das  Seekriegsrecht.  Leipzig, 
1871. 

Katchenovsky,  Dmitrii  I.  Prize  law ;  particularly  with  reference  to  the  duties 
and  obligations  of  belligerents  and  neutrals.  Translated  from  the  Russian 
by  Frederic  Thomas  Pratt.    London,  1867.     189  pp. 

Kent,  James.     Commentaries  on  American  Law.     4  vols. 


xxiv  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Kleen,  Rikard.     Le  droit  de  la  contrebande  de  guerre.     Brussels,  1893. 

.     Lois  et  usages  de  la  neutralite  d'apres  le  droit  international  conven- 

tionnel    et   coutumier   des    etats    civilises.     Paris,   A.    Chevalier-Marescq  et 

ci«,  1898-1900.    2  vols. 
.     Om  krigskontraband.     1888.     1  vol. 


Kluber,  Johann  L.     Droit  des  gens  moderne  de  I'Europe,  avec  un  supplemcn'. 

contenant  une  bibliotheque  choisie  du  droit  des  gens.     Paris,  1831.    2  vols. 
.     [Same]    Revised,    annotated    and    completed    by    M.    A.    Ott.      Second 

edition.     Paris,  1874.     573  pp. 

Koch  et  Schoell.     See  Schoell. 

Krauel,  Richard.  Preussen  und  die  bewaffnete  neutralitat  v.  1780.  (In  Fors- 
chungen  zur  Brandenburgischen  und  Preussischen  Geschichte.  Vol.  21, 
Leipzig.) 

.     Preussen   und   die   Freiheit   neutraler    Giiter   auf    feindlichen    SchifFen, 

Sonderabdruck  aus  der  Festgabe  fiir  Gierke.     Breslau,  1910. 

Lampredi,  G.  M.  Du  commerce  des  neutres  en  temps  de  guerre :  ouvrage  ele- 
mentaire  destine  a  fixer  les  principes  des  conventions  maritimes  et  com- 
merciales  entre  les  nations ;  translated  from  the  Italian  by  Jacques  Peuchet. 
Paris,  1802. 

.     Del  commercio  dei  popoli  neutrali  in  tempo  di  guerra.     Florence,  17'^^^. 

.    Juris  publici  universalis,   sive  juris  naturae  et  gentium,   Theoremata. 

Liburni. 

Laveleye,  Emile  de.  Du  respect  de  la  propriete  privee  en  temps  de  guerre. 
Brussels,  1875. 

Lawrence,  Thomas  Joseph.  The  principles  of  international  law.  Second  edition. 
London,   1897. 

Lebeau.  Nouveau  code  des  prises,  ou  recueil  des  edits,  declarations,  lettres 
patentes,  arrets,  ordonnances,  reglemens  et  decisions  sur  la  course  et  I'ad- 
ministration  des  prises,  depuis  1400  jusqu'au  mois  de  mai  1789;  suivi  do 
toutes  les  lois,  arretes,  messages,  et  autres  actes  qui  ont  paru  depuis  cette 
derniere  epoque  jusqu'a  present.     Paris,  1799-1801.     3  vols.  4°.     4  vols.  8". 

Leonard,  Frederic.  Recueil  de  traites  de  paix,  de  treve,  de  neutralite  et  de 
confederation,  d'alliance  et  de  commerce,  etc.,  faits  par  les  rois  de  France 
depuis  trois  siecles.     Paris,  1693.     6  vols. 

Liszt,  Franz  von.     Das  Volkerrecht.     Fourth  edition.     Berlin,  1906. 

Louter,  J.  de.     Het  stellig  Volkenrecht.     The  Hague,  1910. 

Lucchesi-Palli.  Principes  de  droit  public  maritime.  Translated  from  the  Italian 
by  J.  Armand  de  Galiani.     Paris,  1842. 

Madison.  Examination  of  the  British  doctrine  which  subjects  to  capture  a 
neutral  trade  not  open  in  time  of  peace.     London,   1806. 

Malloy,  William  M.  Treaties,  conventions,  international  acts,  protocols  and 
afireements  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  other  Powers, 
1776-1909.    Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1910.     2  vols. 

Malmesbury,    James    Harris,    First    Earl    of.     Diaries    and    correspondence    of 

James    Harris containing   an    account   of    his    missions    to    the    Courts 

of  Madrid,  Frederick  the  Great,  Catherine  the  Second,  and  The  Hague ; 
and  of  his  special  missions  to  Berlin,  Brunswick,  and  the  French  Republic. 
London,  R.   Bentley,    1844.     4  vols. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxv 

Manning,  William  Oke.  Commentaries  on  the  law  of  nations.  London,  1839. 
390  pp. 

.  [Same.]  New  edition,  revised  throughout,  with  supplementary  mat- 
ter, bringing  the  work  down  to  the  present  time,  by  Sheldon  Amos,  M.A. 
London,  1875. 

Manuel  (Le)  diplomatique  sur  le  dernier  etat  de  la  controverse  concernant  les 
droits  des  neutres  sur  mer.     Leipzig,   1814. 

Marquardsen,  H.  Handbuch  des  offentlichen  Rechts  der  Gegenwart.  Tubin- 
gen, 1883-. 

Marshall,  S.  A  treatise  on  the  law  of  marine  insurance,  bottomry  and  respon- 
dentia.    Fifth  edition  by  W.  Shee.     London,  1865. 

Martens,  Baron  C.  de  (Karl  von).  Causes  celebres  du  droit  des  gens.  Second 
edition,  revised.     Leipzig,  F.  A.  Brockhaus,  1858-61.     5  vols. 

.     Guide  diplomatique,  ou  precis  des   droits  et  des   fonctions  des   agents 

diplomatiques  et  consulaires.  Fifth  edition  revised  by  F.  H.  GeflFcken. 
Leipzig,  1866.     2  vols. 

.     Nouvelles  causes  celebres   du  droit  des  gens.     Leipzig,   1843.     2  vols. 

et  Cussy   (Baron  Ferdinand  de).    Recueil  manuel  et  pratique  de  traites, 

conventions  et  autres  actes  diplomatiques  sur  lesquels  sont  etablis  les  rap- 
ports existants  aujourd'hui  entre  les  divers  Etats  souverains  du  globe,  depuis 
I'annee  1760  jusqu'a  I'epoque  actuelle.     Leipzig,  1846.     5  vols. 

Martens,  Fedor  Fedorovich.  Le  centenaire  de  la  declaration  de  neutralite  de 
1780.  (In  Revue  de  Droit  international  et  de  Legislation  comparee.  Vol. 
13,  1881.) 

.  Recueil  des  traites  et  conventions  conclus  par  la  Russie  avec  les  puis- 
sances etrangeres,  public  d'ordre  du  Ministere  des  affaires  etrangeres  par 
F.  Martens.  ...  St.  Petersburg,  Imprimerie  du  Ministere  des  voies  de 
communication  (A.  Bohnke),  1874-. 

Martens,  Georg  Friedrich  von.  Erzahlungen  merkwiirdiger  falle  des  neueren 
europaischen  volkerrechts  in  einer  practischen  sammlung  von  staatsschriften 
aller  art,  in  teutscher  und  franzosischer  sprache.  Nebst  einem  anhange 
von  gesetzen  und  verordnungen,  welche  in  einzelnen  europaischen  staaten 
iiber  die  vorrechte  auswiirtiger  gesandten  ergangen  sind.  Gottingen,  P.  G. 
Schroder,  1800-02.     2  vols,  in  1. 

.     Essai    concernant   les    armateurs,    les   prises,   et   sur   tout   les   reprises. 

Gottingen,  1795. 

.    An    essay    on    privateers,    captures,    and    particularly    on    recaptures. 

Translation  from  the  French,  with  notes,  by  T.  H.  Home.     London,  1801. 

.     Precis   du   droit  des   gens   moderne   de  I'Europe,   fonde   sur   les   traites 

et  I'usage.     Third  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.     Gottingen,   1821. 

.     Precis  du  droit  des  gens  moderne  de  I'Europe.     New  edition,  revised; 

accompanied  by  notes  of  Pinheiro-Ferreira ;  preceded  by  an  introduction, 
etc.,  by  Ch.  Verge.     Paris,    1858.     2  vols. 

.     [Same.]      Second  edition.     Paris.   1864.     2  vols. 

.  Recueil  des  principaux  traites  d'alliance,  de  paix,  de  treve,  de  neu- 
tralite, de  commerce,  de  limites,  d'echange,  etc.,  conclus  par  les  puissances 
de  I'Europe  tant  entre  elles  qu'avec  les  puissances  et  etats  dans  d'autres 
parties  du  monde,  depuis  1761  jusqu'a  present  [1801].  Gottingen,  1791-18C1. 
7  vols. 

.     Supplement  au  recueil    [1701-1808].     Gottingen,   1802-08.     4  vols. 

Recueil  des  traites,  etc.     Second  edition   [1761-1808].     Gottingen,  1817- 


35.     8  vols. 


xxvi  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Nouveau    recueil    de    traites    d'alliance,    de    paix,    de    treve et    de 


plusieurs   autres   actes    servant   a   la   connaissance    des    relations   etrangeres 

des    puissances de    I'Europe depuis     1808    jusqu'a    present 

Gottingen,  Dieterich,  1817-41.     16  vols. 

Masse,  G.  Le  droit  commercial  dans  ses  rapports  avec  le  droit  des  gens  et  le 
droit  civil.     Third  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.     Paris,  1874.     4  vols. 

Massey,  William  Nathaniel.  .A.  history  of  England,  during  the  reign  of  George 
the  Third.     London,  J.  W.  Parker  and  Son,  1855-63.     4  vols. 

Matzen,  Henning.  Forel?esninger  over  den  positive  folkeret.  Copenhagen, 
1900.     379  pp. 

Miloutine.  History  of  the  war  of  1799,  between  Russia  and  France  (in  Russian). 
St.  Petersburg,  1857.    5  vols. 

Mirbach,  W.  von.  Die  volkerrechtlichen  Grundsatze  des  Durchsuchungsrechts 
zur   See.     Berlin,   1903. 

Nau,  B.  S.     Grundsatze  des  Volkerseerechts.     Hamburg,  1802. 

Negrin,  J.  de.  Tratado  elemental  de  derecho  internacional  maritimo.  Madrid, 
1873. 

Niemeyer.     Urkundenbuch  zum  Seekriegsrecht.     Berlin,  1913. 

Nys,  Ernest.     Le  droit  international ;  les  principes,  les  theories,  les  faits.     New 

edition.     Brussels,   M.  Weissenbruch.    1912.     3  vols. 
.     Les  Etats-Unis  et  le  droit  des  gens.     (In  Revue  de  droit  international, 

1909.) 

Odner,  C.  T.  Minne  af  riksraadet  grefve  Ulrik  Scheffer.  (In  Svenska  akade- 
miens  handlingar,  1886.) 

Ortolan,  Theodore.  Regies  internationales  et  diplomatie  de  la  mer.  Quatrieme 
edition  mise  en  harmonie  avec  le  dernier  etat  des  traites,  suivie  d'un  appen- 
dice  special  contenant,  avec  les  actes  du  Congres  de  Paris  de  1856.  les  prin- 
cipaux  documents  officiels  relatifs  a  la  derniere  guerre  d'Orient  et  a  la 
guerre  actuelle  d'Amerique.     Paris,  H.  Plon.  1864.     2  vols. 

Parliamentary  history  of  England  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  vear  1803, 
The.    London,  1806-1820.    36  vols. 

Perels,  Ferdinand  Paul.  Manuel  de  droit  maritime  international.  Translated 
from  the  German  and  enlarged  by  some  new  documents  by  L.  Arendt.  Paris, 
1884. 

Phillimore,  Sir  Robert  J.  Commentaries  upon  international  law.  Third  edi- 
tion.    London,  Butterworths,  1879-89.    4  vols. 

Pistoye  (A.  de)  et  Duverdy  (Ch.).  Traite  des  prises  maritimes,  dans  lequel 
on  a  refondu  en  partie  le  traite  de  Valin  en  I'appropriant  a  la  legislation 
nouvelle.     Paris,  1859.    2  vols. 

Peels.  Darstellung  des  gemeinen  deutschen  und  des  hamburgischen  Handels- 
rechts  fiir  Juristen  und  Kaufleute.     Haml)urg,  1830. 

Poll,  H.  M.  van  de.  De  principiis  foederis  quod  dicitur  neutralitas  armata. 
Lugduni  Batavorum,  1821. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxvii 

Pradier-Fodere,  Paul  L.  E.  Traite  de  droit  international  public  europeen  et 
americain,  suivant  les  progres  de  la  science  et  de  la  pratique  contemporaines. 
Paris,  G.  Pedone-Lauriel,  1885-1906.    8  vols. 

Pritchard,    William    R.     Analytical    digest    of    cases    determined    by    the    High 

Court  of  Admiralty  in  England.     Harrisburg,   1848. 
.     Digest    of    the    law    and    practice    of    the    High    Q)urt    of    Admiralty. 

Second  edition.     London,  1865.     2  vols. 
.     [Same.]     Third  edition.     London,  1887.     2  vols. 


Prittwitz  u.  Gafifron,  Friedrich  Wilhelm  von.  Die  bewaf?nete  Neutralitat,  ihre 
theoretische  und  praktische  bedeutung.     Borna,  Leipzig,  1907.     45  pp. 

Pufendorf,  Samuel.  The  law  of  nature  and  nations :  or,  A  general  system  of 
the  most  important  principles  of  morality,  jurisprudence,  and  politics.     In 

eight    books.      Written    in    Latin    by    Baron    Pufendorf Done    into 

English  by  Basil  Kennet. ...... .To  which  is  prefixed  M.  Barbeyrac's  prefa- 
tory discourse,  containing  an  historical  and  critical  account  of  the  science 

of  morality Done  into  English  by  Mr.  Carew 5th  ed 

London,  J.  &  J.  Bonwicke,  etc.,  1749. 

Queen's  Regulations  and  Admiralty  Instructions  for  the  Government  of  Her 
Majesty's  Naval   Service,  The. 

Recueil  des  instructions  donnees  aux  ambassadeurs  et  ministres  de  France  de- 
puis  les  traites  de  Westphalie  jusqu'a  la  revolution  frangaise,  public  sous 
les  auspices  de  la  Commission  des  Archives  Diplomatiques  au  Ministere  des 
Aflfaires  Etrangeres,  XIII,  Danemark,  avec  une  introduction  et  des  notes 
par  A.  GefTroy.     Paris,  Felix  Alcan,  1895. 

Reddie,  J.  Researches,  historical  and  critical,  in  maritime  international  law. 
Edinburgh,  1844  45.    2  vols. 

Reedtz,  H.  C.  de.  Repertoire  historique  et  chronologique  des  traites  conclus 
par  la  Couronne  de  Dannemarc  depuis  Canut-le-Grand  jusqu'a  1800.  Got- 
tingen,  1826. 

Remy,  A.  Theorie  de  la  continuite  du  voyage  en  matiere  de  blocus  et  de  contre- 
bande  de  guerre.     Paris,  1902. 

Revue  de  droit  international  et  de  legislation  comparee.  Brussels,  1869-98. 
30  vols.     Second  series,   Brussels,   1899-. 

Revue  generale  de  droit  international  public.     Paris,  A.  Redone,  1894-. 

Richardson,  James  D.  A  compilation  of  the  messages  and  papers  of  the  Presi- 
dents, 1789-1897.     Washington,  189f^99.     10  vols. 

Riquelme,  Antonio.  Elementos  de  derecho  publico  internacional,  con  espli- 
cacion  de  todas  las  reglas  que,  segun  los  tratados,  estipulaciones,  leyes 
vigentes  y  costumbres,  constituyen  el  derecho  internacional  espanol. 
Madrid,  1849.     2  vols. 

Rivier,  Alphonse.     Lehrbuch  des  volkerrechts.     Second  revised  edition.     Stutt- 
gart, 1899. 
.     Principes  du  droit  des  gens.     Paris,   1896.     2  vols. 

Robinson,  Chr.  Collectanea  Maritima;  being  a  collection  of  public  instru- 
ments, etc.,  tending  to  illustrate  the  history  and  practice  of  prize  law. 
London,  1801.     213  pp. 


xxviii  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Robinson,  Chr.  Reports  in  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  [England,  1798-1809]. 
6  vols.     [English  Admiralty  Reports,  vols.  1-3.] 

Rymer,  Thomas.  Foedera,  conventiones,  literae  et  acta  publica  inter  reges, 
angliae  ab  anno  1101  ad  nostra  tempora  [1698].     London,  1704-17.     17  vols. 

Savoie.  Traites  publics  de  la  royale  maison  de  Savoie  avec  les  Puissances 
etrangeres  depuis  la  paix  de  Cateau-Cambresis  jusqu'a  nos  jours,  publics 
par  ordre  du  Roi.     Turin,   1836-61.     8  vols. 

Schiern,  Frederik  E.  A.  Historiske  studier.  Copenhagen,  C.  G.  Iversen, 
1856-57.     2  vols. 

Schlegel,  Johan  F.  W.  Neutral  rights ;  or.  An  impartial  examination  of  the 
right  of  search  of  neutral  vessels  under  convoy,  and  of  a  judgment  pro- 
nounced by  the  English  court  of  admiralty,  11th  June,  1799,  in  the  case  of 
the  Sw^edish  convoy.  Philadelphia,  printed  at  the  Aurora  office,  1801. 
162  pp. 

.     Sur  la  visite  des  vaisseaux  neutres  sous  convoi, — ou,  Examen  impartial 

du  jugement  prononce  par  le  Tribunal  de  I'amiraute  angloise,  le  11  juin 
1799,  dans  I'affaire  du  convoi  suedois.  Copenhagen,  Imprimerie  de  E.  M. 
Cohen,  1800.     112  pp. 

.  Upon  the  visitation  of  neutral  vessels  under  convoy ;  or.  An  impar- 
tial examination  of  a  judgment  pronounced  by  the  English  court  of  the 
Swedish  convoy London,  printed   for  J.   Debrett,   1801.     187  pp. 

Schoell,  M.  S.  F.  Histoire  abregee  des  traites  de  paix  entre  les  puissances  de 
I'Europe  depuis  la  paix  de  Westphalie,  par  feu  M.  de  Koch ;  ouvrage  en- 
tierement  refondu,  augmente  et  continue  jusqu'au  Congres  de  Vienne  et 
aux  traites  de  Paris  de  1815.     Paris,  1817-18.     15  vols. 

Schovelin,  J.     Fra  den  danske  Handels  Empire.     Copenhagen,   1899. 

Schweizer.     Geschichte   der   schweizerischen   Neutralitat.     Frauenfeld,    1895. 

Secret  journals  of  the  acts  and  proceedings  of  Congress,  from  the  first  meet- 
ing thereof  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Confederation,  by  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Pub.  under  the  direction  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  conformably  to  the  resolution  of  Congress  of 
March  27,  1818,  and  April  21,  1820.     Boston,  T.  B.  Wait.     1820-21.    4  vols. 

Seidelin,  K.  L.     Krig  for  havenes  frihet.     Copenhagen,  1801. 

Soetbeer,  A.  Sammlung  offizieller  Actenstijcke  in  Bezug  auf  Schiffahrt  und 
Handel  in  Kriegszeiten ;  nebst  Nachtrag.     Hamburg,  1855-57. 

Southey,    Robert.     The   Life   of    Nelson.     New  York,    Easthurn,    Kirk   &    Co.; 

Boston,  W.  Wejls,  1813.  _  2  vols. 
.     [Same.]     Edited,   with  an  introduction  and  notes,  by  Frederick  Houk 

Law New  York,  The  Macmillan  Company,  1917.     312  pp. 

Sparks,  J.     The  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution.     Bos- 
ton, 1829-30.     12  vols. 
.     [Same.]     Washington.  1857.     6  vols. 

Stanhope,  Philip  Henry,  Fifth  Earl.  History  of  England  from  the  Peace  of 
Utrecht  to  the  Peace  of  Versailles.     1836-53. 

State  Papers.  See  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers;  Collection  of  state 
papers,  etc. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxix 

Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States.     Concurrent  resolutions,  recent  treaties, 

conventions   and  executive  proclamations Boston,   C.   C.   Little  and   J. 

Brown,  1845-73.  Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1875  to  date. 
In  progress. 

Stewart,  George  N.  Reports,  Supreme  Court  of  Alabama,  1827-1831.  Tus- 
caloosa, 1830-35.    3  vols. 

Stewart  (George  N.)  and  Porter  (Benjamin).  Reports,  Supreme  Court  of 
Alabama,  1831-1834.    Tuscaloosa,  1836-37.    5  vols. 

Strupp.     Urkunden  zur  Geschichte  des  Volkerrechts.     Gotha,  1911. 

Thiers,  Louis  Adolphe,  i.  e.,  Marie  Joseph  Louis  Adolphe.  Histoire  du  consulat 
et  de  I'empire,  faisant  suite  a  I'Histoire  de  la  revolution  frangaise.  Paris, 
Paulin,  1845-74.    21  vols. 

Thurloe,  John.  A  collection  of  the  state  papers  of  John  Thurloe Con- 
taining authentic  memorials  of  the  English  affairs  from  the  year  1638,  to 
the  restoration  of  King  Charles  II.     Published  from  the  originals,  formerly 

in  the  library  of  John  Lord  Somers and  since  in  that  of  Sir  Joseph 

Jekyll Including  also  a  considerable  number  of  original  letters  and 

papers,   communicated   by the   Archbishop   of   Canterbury    from   the 

library   at   Lambeth the    Earl    of   Shelburn,   and   other   hands.     The 

whole  digested  into  an  exact  order  of  time.  To  which  is  prefixed,  The 
life  of  Mr.  Thurloe :  with  a  complete  index  to  each  volume.  By  Thomas 
Birch London,  Printed   for  the  executor  of  F.  Gyles,   1742.     7  vols. 

Treitschke,  Heinrich  Gotthard  von.  Deutsche  geschichte  im  neunzehnten 
jahrhundert.     Leipzig,  S.  Hirzel,  1890-96.     5  vols. 

Trescot,  William  Henry.  The  diplomacy  of  the  revolution :  an  historical 
study.     New  York,  t).  Appleton  and  Company,  1852.     169  pp. 

Turgenev,  Aleksandr  Ivanovich.  La  cour  de  Russie  il  y  a  cent  ans  1725-1783 ; 
extraits  des  depeches  des  ambassadeurs  anglais  et  frangais.  Paris,  E. 
Dentu;  Berlin,  F.  Schneider,   1858.     422  pp. 

Twiss,  Travers.  The  law  of  nations  considered  as  independent  political  com- 
munities. On  the  rights  and  duties  of  nations  in  time  of  war.  Oxford  and 
London,  1863. 

.     [Same.]     Second  edition,  revised.     Oxford  and  London,  1875. 

Valin,  Rene  Josue.  Commentaire  sur  I'ordonnance  de  la  marine  du  mois  d'aotit 
1681.  avec  des  notes  coordonnant  I'ordonnance,  le  commentaire  et  le  code 
de  commerce.     La  Rochelle,  1758-60.     2  vols. 

.     Commentaire  sur  I'ordonnance  de  la  marine  du  mois  d'aoOit  1681,  avec 

des  notes  par  V.  Becane.     Second  edition.     Paris,  1841.    2  vols. 

Vattel,  Emer  de.  Droit  des  gens,  ou  principes  de  la  loi  naturelle  appliques  a 
la  conduite  et  aux  affaires  des  nations  et  des  souverains.    1758.    3  vols. 

Vedel.  P.     Den  aeldre  Grev  Bernstorff's  Ministerium.     Copenhagen.   1882. 

Verge.     See  Martens,  G.  F.  von. 


XXX  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES 

Walker,  Thomas  A.  The  science  of  international  law.  London,  C  J.  Clay  and 
Sons,  1893.    544  pp. 

Ward,  Robert  Plumer.  A  treatise  of  the  relative  rights  and  duties  of  belligerent 
and  neutral  Powers  in  maritime  affairs :  in  which  the  principles  of  armed 
neutralities  and  the  opinions  of  Hiibner  and  Schlegel  are  fully  dis- 
cussed  London,   Diplomatic   Review   Office,   1875. 

Wehberg,  Hans.  Das  Seekriegsrecht.  (In  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts.  Vol.  4, 
Berlin,  Stuttgart  and  Leipzig,  1915.) 

Wellesley,  R.  C,  Marques.  Memoirs  and  correspondence,  edited  by  R.  R. 
Pearce.    London.  1846.    3  vols. 

Wenck,  F.  A.  W.  Codex  juris  gentium  recentissimi,  tabulariorum  exemplo- 
rumque  fide  dignorum  monumentis  compositus,  continens  diplomata  inde 
ab  a.  1735,  usque  ad  a.  1772.    Leipzig,  1781-95.     3  vols. 

Westlake,  John.     International  law.     Cambridge,  The  University  Press,  1904-07. 

2  vols. 
.     [Same.]     Second  edition.     Cambridge,  1910-13. 

Wharton,    Francis.     A   digest   of    the    international   law    of    the    United    States. 

Washington,    1886.     3    vols. 

.     [Same.]      Second   edition.     Washington,    1887.     3  vols. 

.     Revolutionary  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  United  States.  Edited 

under  directions  of   Congress.     Washington,    1889.     6  vols. 

Wheaton,  Henry.  Elements  of  international  law.  Sixth  edition,  with  the  last 
corrections  of  the  author,  additional  notes,  and  introductory  remarks,  con- 
taining a  notice  of  Mr.  Wheaton's  diplomatic  career,  and  of  the  antecedents 

of   his   life,  by  William    Beach   Lawrence Boston,   Little,    Brown   and 

Company,  1855. 

.     [Same.]       Second    annotated    edition    by    William    Beach    Lawrence. 

Boston,  1863. 

.  [Same.]  Edited,  with  notes,  by  Richard  Henry  Dana,  Jr.  Eighth  edi- 
tion.    Boston,   1866. 

.     [Same.]     English  edition,  edited  by  A.  C.  Boyd.     London,  1878. 

.     Elements  du  droit  international.     Fourth  edition.     Leipzig,   1864. 

.     [Same.]     Fifth  edition.     Leipzig,   1874.     2  vols. 

.     Histoire  des   progres   du   droit   des   gens   en   Europe   et   en    Amerique 

depuis  la  paix  de  Westphalie  jusqu'a  nos  jours,  avec  une  introduction  sur 
les  progres  du  droit  des  gens  en  Europe  avant  la  paix  de  Westphalie. 
Third   edition.     Leipzig,    1853.     2  vols. 

.     [Same.]     Fourth  edition.     1865. 

.     History   of    the   law    of    nations    in    Europe   and    America;    from    the 

earliest  times  to  the  treaty  of  Washington,  1842.  New  York,  Gould,  Banks 
and  Company,  1845.     797  pp. 

.     Reports,  Cases  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  1816-1827. 

12  vols. 

Wiegner.  Die  Kriegskonterbande  in  der  Volkerrechtswissenschaft  und  der 
Staatenpraxis.     Berlin,  1904. 

Wildman,  Richard.     Institutes  of  International  law.     London,  1849-50.     2  vols. 

Woolsey,  Theodore  Dwight.  Introduction  to  the  study  of  international  law, 
designed  as  an  aid  in  teaching  and  in  historical  studies  by  Theodore  Dwight 
Woolsey.  Sixth  edition  revised  and  enlarged  by  Theodore  Salisbury 
Woolsey.    New  York,  1897. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  xxxi 

Wurm,    C.    F.     Die    Politik    der    Seemachte    und    der    Fortschritt    des    Volker- 
rechts.     Hamburg.  1855. 

Wynne,   William.     The  life  of   Sir  Leoline  Jenkins   and    a    complete   series   of 
letters.     London,  1724.    2  vols. 

Zachrisson,    C.    A.     Sveriges    underhandlingar    om    bevapned    neutralitet,    aren 
1778-1780.    Upsala,  1863. 

Zeitschrift  fiir  Volkerrecht  und  Bundesstaatsrecht.    Breslau,  J.  U.  Kern's  verlag, 
1906-. 


PART  I 

EXTRACTS  FROM  WORKS  ON 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW 


EXTRACTS  FROM  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN  WORKS 
ON  INTERNATIONAL  LAW  CONCERNING  THE  ARMED 
NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800' 


ALVAREZ:  Le  Droit  International  Americain.    Paris,  1910. 

Alejandro  Alvarez.  Contemporary  Chilean  publicist;  bom  in  1869;  doctor  of 
law  of  the  University  of  Paris;  formerly  professor  of  law  at  the  University 
of  Chile  and  counsellor  to  the  department  of  foreign  affairs  of  Chile;  delegate 
of  Chile,  Costa  Rica  and  Ecuador  to  the  Conference  of  Jurists  at  Rio  de 
Janeiro  for  the  codification  of  international  law ;  associate  of  the  Institute  of 
International  Law;  member  of  the  permanent  court  at  The  Hague;  representa- 
tive of  his  country  at  the  Fourth  Pan-.A.merican  Conference;  secretar>--general 
of    the   American    Institute    of    International    Law. 

His  principal  publications  are :  Une  ijouvelle  conception  des  etudes  juridiques 
et  de  la  codification  du  droit  civil,  1904 ;  La  nationalite  dans  le  droit  interna- 
tional americain,  1907;  Le  droit  international  americain,  1910;  La  codification 
du  droit  international,  1912;  La  grande  guerre  europeenne  et  la  neutralite  du 
Chili,  1915;  Le  droit  international  de  I'avenir,  1916. 


Page  126. — While  the  foresight  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  the 
United  States  was  directed  to  give  to  their  country  such  political  organ- 
ization as  best  conformed  to  their  new  situation,  it  was  none  the  less 
also  directed  to  the  policy  to  be  followed  in  the  relations  with  Europe 
and  in  the  New  World.  They  realized  that  a  substantial  foreign  policy 
would  be  the  basis  of  its  prosperity  and  of  its  development. 

With  Europe,  this  policy  is  very  simple :  not  to  mix  in  European 
affairs  and  not  to  contract  any  alliance,  that  is  to  say,  not  to  partici- 
pate in  any  manner  whatever  in  the  system  of  the  balance  of  power 
and  of  intervention. 

In  his  "Farewell  Address"  Washington  clearly  sets  forth  that  the 
United  States  must  live  independently  of  Europe,  for  its  interests  are 


iQn  the  subject  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  a  general  reference  is  made  to 
Paul  Fauchille's  La  diplomatic  frangaise  et  la  ligue  des  neutres  de  1780  (Paris, 
1893),  a  work  which  should  be  read  in  its  entirety  and  from  which  it  is  difficult 
to  quote  isolated  passages.  For  this  reason  no  extract  therefrom  is  contained 
in  this  collection. 


2  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

very  distinct;  its  situation  as  a  "detached  and  distant"  federation  of 
States  bids  them  follow  a  different  policy.^ 

After  Washington,  we  see  Jeflferson  follow  the  same  line  of  action. 
In  1801  he  stated  to  the  Governor  of  New  Orleans  that  the  interests 
of  Cuba  and  of  Mexico  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  United  States 
were  "to  exclude  all  European  influence  from  this  hemisphere."- 

The  policy  followed  by  the  Union  was  in  accord  with  that  proclaimed 
by  its  statesmen. 

In  the  beginning  of  its  independence,  the  Union  entered  into  treaties 
with  Europe  in  virtue  of  which  it  accepted  the  principles  of  the  law 
of  nations  then  in  force  in  Europe.^ 


BERGBOHM:  Die  Bewaffnete  Neutralitdt,   i/So-iySs-     Eine  Ent- 
wickelungsphase  des  Volkerrechts  im  Seekriege.     Berlin,  1884. 

Carl  Bergbohm.  Contemporary  Russo-German  publicist,  doctor  of  law,  privy 
councillor,  and  associate  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law  from  1885  to 
1898.  He  was  born  at  Riga  in  1849,  studied  at  Dorpat,  Berlin  and  Leipzig;  in 
1877  became  privat  docent  at  Dorpat,  from  1884  to  1896  was  professor  of  public 
law  and  of  international  law  at  the  universities  at  Dorpat  and  Marbourg,  and 
since  that  time  has  been  professor  of  various  branches  of  the  law  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Bonn.  His  principal  publications  are  Staatsvertrdge  und  gesetse  als 
quellcn  des  volkerrechts,  1877,  Die  bewaffnete  neutralitdt,  1884,  and  a  German 
translation  of  F.  Martens'  Russian  treatise  on  the  international  law  of  civilized 
nations,  1883-86. 


I.  Effect  of  the  Armed  Neutrality 

Page  210,  §  61. — In  view  of  the  fact  that  England  did  not  openly 
submit  to  the  armed  neutrality,  the  practical  effects  of  the  latter  can 


'^Richardson's  Messages,  vol.  1,  p.  222.  Cited  by  Foster :  A  Century  of 
American  Diplomacy   (1900),  p.  439. 

^Writings  of  Jefferson,  vol.  9,  p.  213.    Cited  by  Foster,  op.  cit.,  p.  440. 

Hn  this  way,  the  rule  "free  ship,  free  merchandise"  then  accepted  in  Europe, 
was  inserted  in  the  treaties  of  friendship  and  of  commerce  concluded  in  1783 
with  France,  in  1783  with  Sweden  and  in  1785  with  Prussia. 

These  treaties  are  interesting  from  still  another  point  of  view.  The  treaty  of 
1783  included  important  provisions  dealing  with  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
search.  That  of  1785  is  the  first  international  agreement  by  which  the  right  of 
privateering  was  renounced ;  this  renunciation  was  furthermore  not  renewed  in 


BERGBOHM  3 

therefore  not  be  established  officially.  These  effects  are  nevertheless 
of  a  very  high  order,  for  the  reason  that,  including  England,  the  allied 
neutrals  succeeded  in  having  all  their  claims  actually  respected,  and 
especially  the  protective  power  of  the  neutral  flag. 

In  almost  all  parts  of  the  world,  England  was  at  the  same  time 
engaged  in  vigorous  fights  upon  five  different  war  theaters.  The 
Americans  had  found  support  in  the  French  and  in  the  Spaniards ; 
Hyder  Ali  of  Mysore  and  the  Marathi,  aroused  by  French  emissaries, 
had  revolted ;  England  had  even  forced  the  Netherlanders  into  war ; 
could  England  under  these  circumstances  take  the  risk  of  challenging 
even  the  neutral  European  Powers?  The  British  Government  yielded, 
therefore,  as  far  as  the  circumstances  made  this  urgently  necessary ; 
it  chose  the  form  of  fresh  privateering  instructions  in  order  to  meet 
the  wishes  of  the  neutrals,  without  in  any  way,  however,  binding  itself 
in  accordance  with  the  precepts  of  international  law.  First  of  all, 
Russia  had  to  be  satisfied.  An  addition  to  the  ordinances  of  November 
20,  1780,^  issued  to  its  corsairs  enjoined  the  latter  to  observe  strictly 
the  contractual  agreements  entered  into  with  Russia.  In  the  next  place, 
the  English  Government  availed  itself  of  the  outbreak  of  hostilities 
with  the  Netherlands  in  order  to  issue  a  new  and  thoroughgoing  pri- 
vateering instruction,'  which  promised  to  exert  a  beneficent  influence 
upon  the  practice,  because  it  included  the  respective  provisions  of  the 
treaties  of  England  with  various  neutral  maritime  Powers,  and  en- 
joined upon  the  commanders  of  privateers  the  strictest  observance  of 
these  provisions,  under  the  penalty  of  having  their  concessions  re- 
scinded. The  further  remark  that  they  (the  commanders)  "must  also 
exactly  observe  any  other  regulations  as  soon  as  notification  thereof 
should  reach  them,"  permits  one  to  infer  that  the  corsairs  and  the 
prize  courts  had  been  confidentially  directed  to  act  as  nearly  as  possible 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality.  In  view  of  the 
fact,  however,  that  such  forbearance  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the 


the  treaties  signed  between  the  United  States  and  Prussia  in  1799.  By  the 
same  treaty  the  area  of  iniHtary  operations,  in  case  of  war,  was  circumscribed. 
The  treaty  of  1795  with  Spain  contains  important  provisions  dealing  with  block- 
ades. 

Like  the  European  Powers,  excepting  England,  the  confederation  adhered  to 
the  treaty  of  armed  neutrality,  the  importance  of  which  was  so  great  for  the 
free  navigation  of  neutral  vessels  and  for  the  inviolability  of  the  merchandise 
they  transport.  See  Fauchille,  La  diplomatic  franqaise  et  la  ligue  des  ncutres 
de  1780,  pp.  393  et  seq. 

^Post,  p.  328. 

2Instruction  of  December  21,  1780,  post,  p.  335. 


4  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

custom  and  especially  with  the  interests  of  the  privateers,  the  latter 
may  at  first  have  paid  little  heed  to  the  new  instructions,  so  that  it 
became  immediately  necessary  to  reissue  the  former  orders  in  peremp- 
tory form.^ 

Now  that  enemy  goods  had  come  under  the  protection  of  the  neutral 
flag  and  but  few  prizes  were  captured,  privateering  was  no  longer  a 
paying  institution.  The  French,  the  Netherlanders  and  the  Americans 
ceased  to  capture  prizes  because  the  English  had  gradually  seized  all 
their  corsairs,-  and  the  English  encountered  on  the  high  seas  neutral 
ships  almost  exclusively,  and  these,  willing  or  unwilling  she  had  to 
respect.  Thus,  toward  the  end  of  the  war,  privateering  had  ceased 
entirely^  and  it  may  be  stated  that  through  the  last  two  centuries  the 
claims  of  the  neutrals  have  been  fully  respected  by  all  belligerent 
Powers.  They  could  now  navigate  unmolested  from  any  port  to  any 
other  port,  and  they  may  have  availed  themselves  of  these  favorable 
circumstances*  so  that  the  fears  of  England  with  regard  to  the  misuse 
of  the  neutral  flag  were  not  wholly  unfounded. 

If  the  war  had  lasted  longer  it  is  quite  probable  that,  because  of 
the  advantages  which  accrued  to  the  neutrals  as  a  result  of  the  conflict 
between  the  belligerents,  the  latter  would  have  become  envious  of 
these  advantages  to  the  extent  of  finally  doing  away  with  privateering 
altogether  and  of  restoring  their  own  commerce  to  action,  while  under 
the  circumstances,  the  profit  derived  from  navigation  went  almost  ex- 
clusively to  the  proteges  of  the  armed  neutrality.  It  has  been  stated^' 
that  the  Swedes  whose  Government  gave  especial  care  and  attention 
to  commerce,  had  profited  the  most  by  these  circumstances,  next  the 


^Instruction  of  February  15,  1781,  post,  p.  365. 

^Eichhorn,  Geschichte  dcr  drci  let-:tcn  Jahrhnnderte,  vol.  1,  p.  486. 

^Biisch,  Uebcr  das  Bcstreben  der  Volker,  pp.  283  et  seq.;  Nau,  Grundsdtse, 
p.  253;  Dohm,  Denkumrdigkeiten,  vol.  2,  pp.  152  et  seq.;  Eggers,  Denkwurdig- 
keiten  Bcrnstorff's,  vol.  1,  p.  135. 

*The  so-called  "Ostendizing"  of  the  merchantmen  became,  for  instance,  a 
general  practice ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Hollanders  purchased  passes  in  Ostend  for 
their  merchantships  and  subsequently  navigated  them  under  the  Austrian  flag. 
But  England  does  not  seem  to  have  respected  the  neutral  nationality  thus  ac- 
quired. Biisch,  op.  cit.,  p.  283.  Others,  in  order  to  carry  on  this  profitable  com- 
merce under  the  neutral  flag,  purchased  small  landed  properties  in  East  Fries- 
land  or  in  the  Austrian  Netherlands,  so  that  they  might  enjoy  the  rights  of 
Prussian  or  Austrian  subjects.  Dohm,  vol.  2,  p.  154.  At  all  events,  the 
situation  of  the  neutrals  was  no  longer  of  such  a  nature  that,  as  for  instance 
in  1675  in  Paris,  they  could  be  scoffed  at  in  satirical  comedies  as  peoples  who 
were  set  on  from  all  sides.  Beust,  Observationes  militaires  or  War  Notes,  vol.  2 
(Goth a,  1745),  pp.  242  ct  .<;eq. 

•"'Dohm,  vol.  2,  p.  153;  Biisch,  Grimdriss  einer  Geschichte  der  merkwilrdigsten 
Welthdndel  neucrer  Zeit,  p.  422. 


BERGBOHM  5 

Danes,^  the  Prussians  and  lastly  the  Austrian  Netherlands.^  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  Russia  possessed  no  active  commerce,  her  com- 
mercial advantages,  as  the  actual  result  of  the  armed  neutrality,  con- 
sisted in  an  increased  market  of  her  products  such  as  were  needed 
especially  by  the  foreign  navies.^ 

II.  Importance  of  the  Armed  Neutrality 

§  62. — One  might  indeed  have  expected  that  even  beyond  the  dura- 
tion of  the  war  which  had  brought  their  alliance  into  being,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  armed  neutrality  would  have  clung  to  the  "principles  de- 
rived from  the  primitive  right  of  the  peoples"  which  they  had  so  em- 
phatically promulgated  and  protected  in  such  an  extraordinary  man- 
ner. But  the  complexity  and  the  inner  conflict  of  their  political  in- 
terests, to  which  must  be  added  the  inconstancy  of  the  founder  and 
leader  of  the  alliance,  deprived  the  idea  of  a  good  deal  of  its 
efficaciousness.  For  this  reason,  contemporary  writers  were  inclined 
to  attach  but  small  importance  to  the  armed  neutrality.* 

When  we  verify  the  importance  of  the  armed  neutrality  by  its  im- 
mediate practical  effect  we  can  perceive  in  it,  indeed,  only  an  ephemeral 
apparition,  a  brilliant  phenomenon  which  vanished  as  quickly  as  it 
had  come.  Still,  its  effect  was  not  exhausted  with  the  success  which, 
at  all  events,  it  had  had  upon  the  last  years  of  the  American  War 
of  Independence.  Never  before  had  the  principles  of  free  intercourse 
during  the  war  been  so  decidedly  expressed ;  never  had  they  been  de- 


^Sweden  and  Denmark,  since  they  acted  against  England  in  their  opposition 
to  treaty  agreements,  had,  to  be  sure,  to  bear  the  costs  of  large  convoys  (Zach- 
risson,  Sverigcs  underhandlingar,  p.  27,  and  Eggers,  vol.  1,  p.  134),  through 
which  they  had  to  protect  their  merchantmen  against  the  English  cruisers,  es- 
pecially as  Sweden's  principal  export  articles  consisted  of  iron,  wood  and  hemp, 
that  is  to  say,  naval  munitions  which  England  had  always  regarded  as  contra- 
band articles.  The  Danes  secured  the  trade  to  East  India  (Eichhorn,  vol.  1,  p. 
486),  and.  furthermore,  since  the  States  General  had  entered  the  war,  many 
Dutch  vessels  sailed  under  the  Danish  flag.  Nevertheless,  the  statement  by 
Castera  (Vie  dc  Catherine  II,  vol.  2,  p.  231),  according  to  which  a  single  Copen- 
hagen merchant,  by  the  name  of  Konig,  is  said  to  have  had  between  600  and  700 
ships  on  the  seas  at  one  and  the  same  time,  can  not  but  be  an  exaggeration. 

2Dohm,  vol.  2,  p.  153,  reports  that  the  Romberg  firm  of  Brussels  had  in 
1781  no  fewer  than  sixty-eight  ships  upon  the  high  seas — certain  proof  of  the 
safety  with  which  the  neutral  flag  could  at  the  time  navigate  the  seas. 

^Eichhorn,  vol.  1,  p.  486. 

*Baron  von  Albedyhll  (Nouveau  memoire,  p.  40)  who  as  a  diplomat  lived 
through  the  phases  of  the  armed  neutrality,  states  that  finally  nothing  was  left 
of  the  remarkable  phenomenon  but  the  protection  of  the  neutral  commerce  dur- 
ing the  war  just  then  being  waged,  and — many  documents  in  the  archives  upon 
whose  margins  posterity  would  perhaps  record  some  not  very  flattering  notes. 


6  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

fended  with  such  emphasis  as  through  the  league  of  the  neutrals.  And 
even  although — a  fact  that  can  not  be  denied — the  former  members 
of  the  armed  neutrality,  not  even  Catherine  II  excepted,  trampled 
under  foot,  as  belligerents,  during  the  wars  of  the  revolution  and  of 
the  first  empire,  these  same  principles  which,  as  neutrals,  they  had 
held  in  such  high  esteem,  it  must,  however,  be  said  that  subsequently 
they  returned  to  them  and  finally  abided  by  them.  Thus,  with  regard 
to  the  humanizing  of  warfare,  the  armed  neutrality  is  an  event  without 
which  the  definitive  recognition  of  its  principles  could  hardly  have  been 
reached  by  the  Paris  Declaration  of  Maritime  Laws  of  1856. 

In  another  direction,  however,  a  certain  importance  must  be  attri- 
buted to  the  armed  neutrality  if  we  will  bear  in  mind  the  theories 
resulting  from  it  for  the  characteristic  features  of  the  establishment 
of  a  law  within  the  realm  of  international  law,  especially  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  that  law  observed  in  warfare. 

As  long  as  maritime  wars  continue  to  be  waged,  the  neutral  nations 
do  not  want  to  be  harmed  in  the  course  of  such  wars,  but  wish  to 
continue  their  commerce  and  intercourse  with  one  another  and  with 
the  belligerents.  One  belligerent,  however,  finds  it  to  his  interest  to 
isolate  the  other  and  to  deprive  him  of  the  importation  of  such  goods 
as  might  increase  or  renew  his  power  of  resistance.  In  order  that  the 
belligerent  may  consent  to  renounce  the  enforcement  of  this  interest 
as  long  as  he  is  a  party  to  the  war,  enjoyment  of  the  advantages  of  an 
undisturbed  commercial  freedom  may  be  held  in  prospect  for  him  if 
on  his  part  he  remains  neutral  in  some  other  war.  The  voluntary  ac- 
ceptance by  a  State  of  such  an  adjustment  between  the  injury  of  to- 
day and  the  advantage  of  to-morrow  presupposes,  however,  that 
the  alternation  between  the  parts  of  belligerent  and  neutral  is  likely 
enough  for  him.  Not  every  State  may  rely  upon  such  a  presupposi- 
tion ;  England,  for  instance,  can  hardly,  in  a  maritime  war  of  some 
magnitude,  remain  a  neutral  spectator  for  any  great  length  of  time ; 
and  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that,  from  time  immemorial,  England 
has  been  unwilling  to  hear  anything  about  the  freedom  of  neutral 
navigation.  Now,  if  the  neutral  Powers  thought  that  they  had  to 
insist  upon  the  freedom  of  their  commerce  on  the  basis  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  armed  neutrality  while  a  corresponding  treatment  could 
not  be  obtained  from  all  the  belligerents  by  a  consideration  of  their 
interests  in  the  manner  indicated,  there  was  no  other  recourse  left 
open  to  them  except  to  enforce  another  means  against  the  recalcitrants: 
threat. 


BERGBOHM  7 

The  armed  neutrality  has  shown  that  even  the  strongest  maritime 
Power — the  more  certainly  so  if  a  maritime  war  continues  for  a  long 
time — may  be  compelled  to  adapt  its  conduct  to  the  demands  of  the 
neutrals  who  have  reached  a  certain  agreement  among  themselves. 
The  life  of  the  armed  neutrality  has  shown,  furthermore,  that  power 
must  be  taken  into  account  whenever  it  is  sought  to  find,  among  inde- 
pendent nations,  recognition  for  a  new  law,  especially  the  law  of  war- 
fare. In  the  establishment  of  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare,  the 
armed  neutrality  has,  in  surprising  manner,  illumined  the  relation  of 
the  neutrals  to  the  belligerents ;  and  this  is  a  feature  of  the  armed 
neutrality  whose  importance  can  not  be  minimized. 

§  6^. — As  compared  with  the  prize  regulations  and  privateering  in- 
structions of  belligerent  States  the  principles  which  the  neutrals  re- 
gard as  law  and  any  publications  issued  by  them  in  regard  thereto 
and  to  be  observed  by  their  subjects  are  of  but  little  importance.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  war-ships  and  armed  corsairs  of  the  belliger- 
ents rule  the  seas  and  their  courts  judge  of  all  prize  matters,  accord- 
ing to  their  treaties,  laws  and  ordinances — whether  or  not  this  is 
legitimate,  is  another  question — the  belligerents  assume,  even  as  in  war, 
an  active  role  with  regard  to  the  neutrals  who  remain  essentially  pas- 
sive. That  which  the  neutrals  postulate  as  a  right  is  in  practice  cer- 
tainly of  less  importance  than  that  which  the  belligerents  order  as  a 
right :  the  prize  decisions  of  the  belligerent  States  are  expressions  of 
their  will;  they  are  principles  in  accordance  with  which  their  ma- 
chinery of  might,  that  is  to  say,  in  accordance  with  which  their  armed 
sea  police  and  their  prize  courts  will  probably  act  and  in  comparison 
with  which  the  dissentient  legal  views  of  the  neutrals  appear  simply 
as  wishes  to  be  treated  according  to  certain  principles.  Even  in  case 
the  neutral  should  secure  regard  for  his  wish,  for  his  conception  of 
law  on  the  part  of  the  belligerent,  and  even  although  under  circum- 
stances he  were  to  dictate  to  the  latter  the  substance  of  his  prize  regu- 
lations in  so  far  as  neutral  interests  are  concerned,  still,  the  real  source 
of  the  practical  positive  prize  law  is  the  belligerent  State.  This  can 
be  readily  understood  and  is  incontrovertible  when  we  consider  and 
admit  that  he  who  has  conceived  the  thought  of  a  legal  principle  is 
not  the  source  itself  of  this  principle,  but  only  he  who  turns  such 
thought  into  a  binding  commandment.  Not  the  conceived,  recom- 
mended or  requested  law  but  the  practical  law  is  the  only  law  which 
is  of  value ;  practical  law  is  a  positive  law,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  set 


8  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

forth  as  the  standard  of  conduct  for  all  whom  it  concerns,  hence,  for 
the  deciding  and  executory  authorities  whose  views,  in  virtue  of  the 
organization  of  human  communities,  are  turned  into  acts  of  the  will, 
and  whose  judgments  are  transformed  into  absolute  commandments ; 
to  my  mind,  that  alone  is  law  which  operates  as  law. 

Whether  or  not  the  prize  laws  of  the  belligerents  may  be  looked 
upon,  from  the  material  point  of  view,  as  unjust,  barbarous,  or  quali- 
fied in  any  other  way,  the  fact  remains  that  they  operate  as  formal  law 
with  regard  to  which  the  eventually  dissentient  postulates  of  the  neu- 
trals are,  as  a  rule,  nothing  but  idle  wishes ;  and  if  the  publications  of 
the  neutrals  deal  with  any  such  idle  desires,  they  are  injudicious,  con- 
fusing and  injurious.  What  good,  I  will  ask,  was  accomplished  by 
such  neutral  announcements  as,  for  instance,  were  issued  during  the 
American  War  of  Independence?  If  the  Government  of  a  neutral 
State  wishes,  on  principle,  to  establish  its  views  with  regard  to  mari- 
time questions,  there  is  nothing  objectionable  in  its  issuing  a  publica- 
tion to  its  subjects,  in  the  form  of  a  regulation  or  in  any  other  form. 
The  point  which  in  such  circumstances  the  Government  must  bear  in 
mind  is  that  it  have  a  clear  idea  as  to  the  limitations  of  its  authority, 
and  that  in  such  instructions  it  must  not  include  any  statements  which 
predicate  theoretical  opposition  against  the  one  real  practice  in  mari- 
time law,  that  is  to  say.  against  the  practice  of  the  belligerents. 

The  edicts  of  the  neutral  Governments  to  which  we  have  referred 
and  others  similar  thereto  are,  to  a  large  extent,  guilty  of  an  irra- 
tional mixing  of  two  heterogeneous  elements.  The  one  of  these  two 
elements  is  represented  by  those  ideas  and  principles  which  are  recog- 
nized by  both  the  belligerent  and  the  respective  neutral  nations  con- 
cerned, no  matter  how  such  an  agreement  may  have  been  reached ;  the 
second  of  these  two  elements  is  represented  by  those  ideas  which  one 
party  defines  in  one  way.  and  another  party  in  another  way,  and  by 
principles  which  the  neutral  party  asserts,  while  the  belligerent  State 
objects  to  them,  or  the  other  way  round.  We  are  not  going  to  con- 
sider the  first-named  elements  which  are  not  in  controversy.  Their 
promulgation  at  the  time  of  the  outbreak  of  a  war  and  recalling  them 
to  the  attention  of  those  concerned  can  but  be  approved,  and  should 
even  be  made  obligatory.  But  as  to  the  constitutive  parts  of  the 
second  class  in  regard  to  which  the  belligerent  and  the  neutral  will 
probably  not  agree,  does  not  the  neutral  State  forget  that  in  case  it 
can  not  or  will  not  employ  force,  it  is  merely  a  subordinate  factor  in 


BERGBOHM  9 

the  building  up  of  law  and  can  not  in  practice  enforce  its  legal  con- 
cepts toward  the  dissentient  belligerent?  Unfortunate  must  be  the 
experiences  of  the  trustful  merchant  who,  in  the  course  of  the  war, 
would  follow  such  an  apparently  paternal  direction  and  warning  of  his 
Government ! 

No  one  expects  neutral  States  blindly  to  submit  even  to  Draconic 
laws  of  the  belligerent  Powers.  But  what  good  will  be  accomplished 
— this  is,  after  all,  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter — if  by  means  of  ex- 
plicit announcements,  a  neutral  Government  permits  its  merchants,  as 
seafarers,  to  do  that  which  the  belligerent  party  forbids  under  heavy 
penalty?  or  if  it  studiously  withholds  from  them  what  sort  of  treat- 
ment they  may  expect  from  this  or  from  that  belligerent?  Subjective 
regulations  of  this  sort,  quite  frequently  the  result  of  mere  caprice, 
to  which  is  given  the  pleasing  name  of  "general  international  law,'' 
and  fated  to  disappear  with  the  momentary  interest  which  brought 
them  into  being,  are  more  than  mere  thoughtlessness,  they  are  with 
regard  to  the  penalties  which  the  ill-treated  subjects  must  of  necessity 
suffer  as  a  result  thereof,  an  agreement  against  the  well-being  of  the 
people. 

§  64. — We  can  easily  imagine  some  of  the  consequences  of  such 
a  misconceived  thrusting  forth  of  one's  own  viewpoint  with  regard 
to  that  which  is  law.  and  the  injury  which  such  wrong  information 
and  incomplete  warning  must  cause  to  commerce.  Let  us  consider, 
for  instance,  the  proteic  conception  of  contraband.  The  edicts  already 
referred  to  and  issued  by  the  States  bordering  upon  the  Mediterranean 
circumscribe  it  almost  without  exception,  firmly  believing,  no  doubt, 
that  their  views  fitted  the  "general  international  law"  with  regard  to 
the  articles  directly  of  use  in  waging  war.  If  seafarers  had  believed, 
however,  that  under  the  Venitian,  etc.,  flag  they  were  permitted  to 
transport  all  other  goods,  for  instance,  to  France,  any  English  corsair 
or  judge  of  a  prize  court  would  have  taught  them  quite  the  contrary, 
for  England's  contraband  list  included  many  other  articles  which 
could  be  used  indirectly  for  war  purposes.  The  city  council  of  Ham- 
burg was  wise  enough  to  recommend  to  ship-owners  an  examination 
of  the  list  of  those  articles  which  the  belligerent  Powers  had  de- 
clared to  be  contraband.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  indication 
in  this  regulation  which  hopes  for  the  enforcement  of  the  principle 
"free  ship,  free  goods."  that  France  would  consent  to  this  principle,  so 
that  English  goods  could  be,  but  French  and  American  goods  could  not 


10  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

be  transported  without  danger.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  merchants 
of  Hamburg  knew  what  treatment  would  be  given  enemy  goods  under 
neutral  flag  by  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  belligerents,  and  that 
therefore  they  required  no  special  instructions  upon  this  matter.  Who- 
ever was  informed  of  this  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  major 
portion  of  the  remainder  of  the  extended  regulation  and  if  their  in- 
struction refrained  from  explaining  one  of  the  most  important  ques- 
tions, the  city  council  might  just  as  well  have  omitted  any  reference 
whatever  to  the  entire  regulation. 

Sweden's  ordinance,  however,  is  the  most  surprising  of  all  such 
edicts  with  regard  to  indefiniteness ;  it  might  indeed  be  regarded  as  a 
diplomatic  note  addressed  to  the  English  Cabinet,  but  not  as  an  edict 
for  the  instruction  of  the  Swedish  mercantile  world.  It  forbids,  for 
instance,  to  the  Swedes,  all  commerce  in  contraband,  but  any  other 
commerce,  according  to  the  treaties  and  "general  international  law"  is 
expressly  permitted.  And  what  would  have  been  the  consequences  if, 
trusting  that  the  Swedish  flag  covered  enemy  goods,  they  had  trans- 
ported French  goods  which  the  English  might  have  captured?  It 
can  not  be  said  that  the  Swedish  Government  was  resolved  in  such 
case  to  protect  the  interests  of  its  subjects.  It  was  not  resolved  to 
pursue  such  a  course ;  on  the  contrary ;  it  had  already  decided  to  con- 
fine its  action  to  preventive  measures  of  uncertain  effect,  and  to  diplo- 
matic representations.  The  State  would  not  have  been  responsible 
for  the  actual  losses  caused  to  the  credulous  as  a  result  of  that  crim- 
inally misleading  ordinance. 

At  all  events,  it  is  wiser  to  leave  it  to  the  tact,  to  the  prudence, 
possibly  to  the  luck  of  the  interested  parties  themselves  as  to  what 
they  may  venture  to  do  upon  their  own  responsibility ;  and  it  is  better 
to  keep  silent  even  as  to  the  other  neutrals  rather  than  to  issue  such 
confusing  proclamations.  The  neutral  State  is  certainly  entitled  to  be 
heard  in  the  establishment  of  law  concerning  the  relations  between 
neutrals  and  belligerents.  But  when  in  confidence  it  notifies  its  sub- 
jects, as  already  finally  accepted,  of  a  prize  law  yet  to  be  secured  and 
which  seems  to  it  better  and  more  just  than  that  applied  by  the  bel- 
ligerent, it  shows  itself  in  such  case  to  be  an  impractical  State,  believ- 
ing that  it  need  merely  announce  its  principles  and  the  facts  will 
voluntarily  and  unanimously  conform  thereto. 

The  original  opposition  of  the  neutral  against  the  maxims  of  the 
belligerent  may  indeed  lose  its  theoretical  aspect  and  enter  into  the 


BERGBOHM  11 

practical  stage,  and  thus  effect  an  essential  transformation  in  the  uni- 
laterally conceived  "Kricgsraison" ;  and  as  an  equal,  and  under  certain 
circumstances  even  as  a  superior  factor  in  the  shaping  of  law,  the  un- 
satisfied neutral,  even  in  the  midst  of  a  war,  may  take  a  strong  stand 
toward  the  belligerent,  but  only  on  the  condition  that  it  will  not  be 
afraid  to  pass  from  mere  representations  to  reprisals,  and  from  re- 
prisals to  measures  of  war.  If  the  neutral  wishes  to  be  heard  it 
must  at  least  oppose  with  force,  held  in  readiness,  the  belligerent 
which  defiantly  trusts  to  the  force  it  has  put  into  operation.  It  is 
then  possible  for  a  neutral  State,  and  if  not  possible  to  a  single  neutral 
State  then  to  several  allied  neutral  States,  successfully  to  oppose  their 
interests  to  those  of  the  belligerent  and  turn  them  into  an  efficient 
means  in  the  formation  of  the  law. 

Once  and  for  all,  the  armed  neutrals  have  demonstrated  this  possi- 
bility to  the  incredulous  belligerents.  Here,  therefore,  in  the  field  of 
constituting  law  in  international  law,  lies  the  significance  of  the  armed 
neutrality  reaching  beyond  its  direct,  practical  effects ;  it  was  not 
merely  the  expression  for  the  part  which  the  neutrals  claimed  for 
themselves  in  the  development  of  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare,  but 
it  was  also  the  only  form  by  which  the  second-rate  maritime  Powers, 
with  a  firmly  resolved  forward  movement,  could  succeed  in  giving  a 
new  direction  to  international  maritime  law ;  for  the  national  life  and 
world  history  have  no  consideration  for  a  law  that  the  people  are  not 
willing  to  fight  for. 

I.  The  Right  of  the  Neutrals,  1783-1800 

§  6p. — England  was  far  from  recognizing  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality  in  the  sense  of  "general  international  law,"  especially  the 
principle  "free  ship,  free  goods."  Her  intention  to  regard  then,  as 
theretofore,  the  principles  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  as  authoritative, 
and  to  admit  the  "new  maritime  law"  only  on  the  basis  of  treaties,  be- 
came quite  evident  at  the  Versailles  peace  agreement  through  her  un- 
equal treatment  of  her  adversaries.  Through  a  renewing  of  the 
Utrecht  treaties  the  protective  power  of  the  neutral  flag  was  granted 
to  France  and  to  Spain,^  and  to  the  former  State  in  the  treaty  of 
commerce  and  navigation  of  September  26,  1786,  as  well;  the  "ancient 


'Martens,  Rccueil.  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  pp.  519,  541.  553;  Hennings,  vol.  2,  pp.  474, 
493.  510;    Martens  et  Cussy,  vol.   1,  pp.  301,   311,  398. 


12  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

maritime  law"'  remained  in  force  with  regard  to  the  Netherlands/ 
because  the  Government  of  this  country  had  trifled^  with  that 
"privilege.'' 

The  other  Powers  which  had  taken  part  in  the  last  war,  together 
with  all  the  members  of  the  neutrality  alliance,  concluded  during  the 
subsequent  short  period  of  peace,  a  large  number  of  treaties  affirming 
either  all  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  or  at  least  the  second 
of  these  principles,  according  to  which  the  neutral  fiag  was  to  cover 
enemy  goods.^  A  number  of  conventions  were  entered  into  which 
absolutely  ignored  the  principle  of  "unfree  ship,  unfree  goods, "^  and  in 
the  celebrated  treaty  of  September  10,  1785,  Frederick  the  Great  and 
Benjamin  Franklin  went  even  so  far  as  mutually  to  renounce  the  exer- 
cise of  privateering  in  the  improbable  case  that  war  should  break  out 
between  their  respective  States. 

During  the  decade  following  the  termination  of  the  North  American 
War  of  Independence,  not  a  single  treaty  was  concluded  on  the  basis  of 
the  Consolato  del  Mare.  But  this  faithfulness  toward  the  principles 
which  had  been  proclaimed  was  of  little  significance,  because  it  did  not 
have  to  stand  the  test  against  attack.  When  a  State  was  neutral  in  a 
war,  principle  and  interests  harmonized;  if  general  peace  prevailed, 
the  law  of  maritime  warfare  was  inoperative.  But  when  war  came, 
and   in   its  train  the   opportunity    for  the   former   neutral    States,   as 


^Martens,  Rccueil,  p.  560. 

^Martens,  ibid.,  p.  173;  Hennings,  vol.  1,  p.  56,  vol.  2,  p.  62;  Martens,  Ercdh- 
lungen,  vol.  2,  pp.  101,  103;  Ch.  de  Martens,  Nouvelles  causes,  vol.  1,  p.  169; 
Martens  et  Cussy,  vol.  1,  p.  202. 

^These  treaties  were  concluded  betv^^een  Russia  and  Denmark,  October  8/19, 
1782;  with  Austria,  in  November,  1785  (in  the  form  of  two  edicts)  ;  with 
France,  December  31,  1786/January  11,  1787;  with  Naples,  January  6/17,  1787; 
with  Portugal,  December  9/20,  1787;  treaties  of  France  with  Holland,  Novem- 
ber 10,  1785;  with  Hamburg,  March  17,  1789;  treaties  of  the  United  States  with 
Holland,  October  8,  1782;  with  Sweden,  April  3,  1783;  with  Prussia,  September 
10,   1785;   treaty  of   Denmark  with  Genoa,  July  30,   1789. 

*These  conventions  were,  of  course,  entered  into  only  with  the  Barbary 
States  and  with  Turkey,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  treaty  of  the  United  States 
with  Morocco,  January  25,  1787;  of  Spain  with  Tunis,  June  19,  1791;  of  Russia 
with  Turkey,  June  21,  1783,  confirmed  by  the  peace  of  Jassy,  January  9,  1792. 
The  Russian-Turkish  treaty  docs  not  contain  the  usual  clause  of  reciprocity 
by  which  the  Porte  declares  not  to  confiscate  Russian  goods  under  enemy  flag, 
although  Russia  does  not  renounce  her  right  to  confiscate  Turkish  goods  under 
enemy  flag;  the  treaties  of  the  United  States  and  of  Spain  with  the  Barbary 
States  provide,  to  be  sure,  for  reciprocity,  but  in  practice  they  turn  out  to  the 
advantage  of  the  American,  and  as  the  case  may  be,  to  the  Spanish  nation, 
because  the  pirates  were  hardly  ever  in  position  to  entrust  important  objects  to 
a    foreign    flag. 


BERGBOHM  13 

belligerents,  to  observe  and  regard  as  sacred  the  "principles  derived 
from  the  original  code  of  laws  of  the  peoples''  which  were  to  form  the 
"permanent  law  in  all  cases  concerning  the  enforcement  of  fhe  rights 
of  the  neutrals" — then  the  associates  of  the  league  with  its  founder  at 
their  head,  left  their  banner  shamefully  in  the  lurch  and  joined  the 
camp  of  the  "sea-tyrant  whose  despotism  upon  the  seas  was  to  have 
been  broken."  Mindful  of  the  ideal  conception  of  its  great  minister, 
"that  there  could  be  no  future  deviation  from  those  principles,"  only 
one  State  of  those  which  had  signed  the  neutrality  declaration  refused 
to  the  uttermost  to  break  faith  with  itself — it  was  compelled  to  do  so 
by  force :  after  the  battle  in  the  roadway  of  Copenhagen,  Denmark,  the 
last  champion  of  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  abandoned  the 
"freedom  of  the  neutral  flag"  which  had  been  betrayed  by  all.  What 
a  triumph  for  England ! 

§  JO. — "The  right  of  the  offended  is  infinite."  This  dogma  of  the 
philosophers  of  the  law  of  nature  who  wrote  toward  the  end  of  the 
past  century  seems,  as  it  were,  ready-made  in  order  to  provide  the 
legal  basis  for  the  actions  of  the  maritime  Powers  during  the  coalition 
wars  against  the  republican  and  imperial  France.  The  belligerents 
entered  upon  the  declivitous  road  of  "reprisals"  to  which  they  re- 
sorted more  and  more  and  finally  returned  to  the  barbarism  of  the 
middle  ages.  In  the  course  of  this  period  even  international  law  dis- 
appeared, along  with  the  political  system  of  Europe. 

With  the  intention  of  destroying  the  abuses  of  the  laws  of  maritime 
warfare  at  their  roots,  the  French  convention  of  1792  adopted  a  series 
of  resolutions  which  resulted  in  nothing  less  than,  in  imitation  of  the 
Prusso-American  treaty  of  1785,  stripping  the  right  to  seize  private 
property  on  the  seas,  by  a  general  renunciation  by  the  maritime  Powers 
of  privateering.  This  proposed  reform  was  not,  however,  welcomed  by 
the  other  States.  On  the  contrary;  on  February  8,  1793,  Russia  de- 
clared the  treaty  of  1787  which  had  sanctioned  the  principle  "free  ship, 
free  goods,"  abrogated  until  order  had  been  reestablished  in  France,  and 
on  March  25th  of  the  same  year,  Russia  entered  into  an  agreement 
with  England  for  the  purpose  of  stopping  absolutely  all  traffic  between 
revolutionary  France  and  the  rest  of  the  world. 

There  began  now  a  formal  rivalry  between  the  war  adversaries,  and 
in  the  short  space  of  five  years  all  barriers  were  thrown  down  which 
had  stood  in  the  way  of  the  unrestricted  plundering  of  enemy  and 
neutral    subjects.      The    National    Convention    answered    the    Russo- 


14  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

English  Convention  by  issuing  a  decree  on  May  9,  1793,  which  sus- 
pended the  protective  power  of  the  neutral  flag  in  regard  to  enemy 
property,  until  her  enemies  should  again  have  recognized  the  basic 
freedom  of  neutral  commerce,  declaring  at  the  same  time  all  neces- 
saries of  life  as  contraband.  But  in  the  course  of  the  year  1793 
England  concluded  in  turn  conventions  with  Spain  (May  25),  with 
Naples  (July  12),  with  Prussia  (July  14),  with  Austria  (August  30) 
and  with  Portugal  (September  26)  on  the  same  basis  as  she  had  con- 
cluded her  previous  convention  with  Russia,  that  is  to  say,  for  the 
purpose  of  a  systematic  starvation  of  her  opponent.  England,  how- 
ever, did  not  succeed  in  her  effort  to  induce  Denmark  to  join  in  this 
attempt  and  to  surrender  her  declared  principles.  On  July  28,  1793, 
Count  Bernstorff  made  answer  to  the  English  Cabinet  with  so  much 
dignity  that  in  the  English  Parliament  he  met  with  approval  for  his 
faithfulness  to  conviction,  and  on  March  27,  1794,  he  concluded  with 
Sweden,  which  had  shown  herself  by  far  more  pliant  toward  Russia 
and  England,  a  treaty  declaring  the  blockade  of  the  Baltic  Sea  through 
strong  war  fleets,  against  all  war  operations,  and  for  the  mutual  pro- 
tection of  the  commerce  of  the  subjects  of  both  countries.^ 

The  Danish  merchant  marine  was  to  be  made  to  feel  the  full  effect 
of  this  blunt  decision  and  the  full  ire  of  England  for  refusing  to 
accept  her  proposals.  In  the  jurisprudence  of  the  English  prize  courts 
a  distinction  had  been  drawn  between  two  kinds  of  contraband :  arms 
and  all  material  for  the  construction  of  ships  had  been  regarded  as 


^That  in  those  times  many  States  acted  unscrupulously,  although  upon  occa- 
sion they  were  ready  to  interfere  forcibly  in  behalf  of  their  pretended  prin- 
ciples, is  perhaps  best  shown  by  the  fickle  attitude  of  the  United  States.  In 
1778,  the  United  States  had  recognized  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods," 
and  in  1780  it  had  even  accepted  all  the  five  points  of  the  armed  neutrality. 
On  November  19,  1794,  it  concluded,  however,  a  treaty  with  England  through 
which  it  fully  accepted  the  system  of  the  Consolato  del  Marc,  and  the  Secretary 
of  State  Jefferson,  nevertheless,  expounded  to  an  Englishman  the  difference 
between  "natural"  or  "general  international  law"  and  "contractual  privilege." 
But  in  spite  of  this,  in  its  treaty  with  Spain  of  October  27,  1795,  the  United 
States  again  recognizes  the  freedom  of  the  neutral  flag.  When  the  French 
Directory  had  caused  unheard-of  violence  to  neutral  navigation  by  some  edicts 
issued  in  1797  and  1798,  the  Government  of  the  United  States  regarded  this 
course  almost  as  a  declaration  of  war,  and  it  proceeded  to  make  thoroughgoing 
preparations  for  the  conflict,  a  fact  which  did  not  prevent  it,  however,  from 
again  repudiating  in  the  new  treaty  with  Prussia,  July  11,  1799 — the  same  State 
with  which  America  had  previously  pretended  to  anticipate  all  other  countries 
in  tlie  humanization  of  laws  of  maritime  warfare — the  inviolability  of  the 
neutral  flag,  and  soon  thereafter,  on  September  30,  1800,  returning  once  more 
to  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods,"  through  the  treaty  of  peace  and  com- 
merce concluded   with   the   First  Consul. 


BERGBOHM  15 

contraband ;  imperishable  necessaries  of  life,  horses,  etc.,  were  added 
to  this  list  if  they  were  destined  for  ports  in  which  the  enemy  was 
fitting  out  war-ships  and  troops.  If  the  forbidden  goods  belonged  to 
the  owner  of  the  ship,  the  latter  was  confiscated  as  well,  otherwise  the 
cargo  alone  was  confiscated  and  payment  was  to  be  made  for  it  in 
case  it  was  proved  that  it  was  produced  in  the  home  country  of  the 
ship  itself.  Finally,  and  in  accordance  with  a  new  principle,  England 
wanted  to  forbid  neutrals  generally  to  transport  any  products  other 
than  those  of  their  own  land,  and  things  looked  pretty  bad  in  practice 
as  to  the  actual  payment  in  case  the  "right  of  preemption"  was 
exercised.^ 

In  addition  to  all  this,  England,  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  had 
returned  to  her  old  practice  of  the  purely  "declared"  blockade,  and  all 
ships  which  were  on  their  way  to  a  French  port,  fictitiously  declared 
in  a  state  of  blockade,  were  unrelentingly  seized.  Not  satisfied  there- 
with, England  forbade  the  neutrals,  by  announcement  of  January  8, 
1794,  any  and  all  traffic  with  the  French  colonies,  although  she  could 
hardly  have  based  such  action  at  this  time  upon  the  unlawfulness  of 
the  "commerce  nouveau"^  because  since  1749  France  had  already 
surrendered  her  monopoly  of  commerce  with  her  colonies  and  per- 
mitted all  the  other  nations  to  engage  in  that  commerce.  But  when,  in 
time,  France  realized  that  almost  every  connection  between  her  own 
ports  had  been  made  impossible,  she  resorted  to  the  most  rigorous 
measures,  and  on  October  31,  1796,  the  Director}'  forbade  all  importa- 
tion of  any  and  all  English  goods,  and  on  January  18,  1798,  there 
was  issued  an  ordinance  which  because  of  its  monstrosity  was  main- 
tained only  up  to  December  20,  1799,  according  to  which  the  nationality 
of  the  ship  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  the  nationality  of  the  cargo, 
that  is  to  say,  every  vessel  on  which  were  found  any  English  products 
whatever,  was  confiscated  along  with  her  cargo.     Through  this  act  an 


iln  the  course  of  but  a  few  months  of  the  year  1793  one  hundred  and  eighty- 
nine  ships  laden  with  corn,  meats,  etc.,  were  taken  from  Denmark  alone;  their 
value  in  English  ports  was  estimated  at  557,000  pounds  sterling,  of  which,  up 
to  November,  1794,  38,407  pounds  sterling  had  been  paid  to  the  owners !  Nor 
did  Denmark  fare  better  at  the  hands  of  France.  A  judge  of  a  French  prize 
court  declared,  for  instance,  that  the  commercial  treaty  with  Denmark  of  1742, 
concluded  for  the  space  of  fifteen  years,  had  terminated  in  1757.  He  did  not 
know — or  did  he  not  want  to  know? — that  already  in  1749,  this  treaty  had  been 
continued  until  a  new  treaty  should  be  entered  into,  and  he  rendered  a  decision 
of  a  kind  which,  all  of  a  sudden,  occasioned  Danish  merchants  a  loss  of  twelve 
million  francs.     See  Koch  et  Schoell,  Histoire,  vol.  6,  pp.  30,  45. 

^Bergbohm,  pp.  33  et  seq. 


16  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

attempt  was  made  to  put  the  equally  monstrous  principle  "unfree 
goods,  unfree  ship"  into  effect.  But  as  numberless  things  had  to  be 
established  in  this  matter,  and  things  which  it  was  impossible  to  deter- 
mine on  the  high  seas,  all  ships  had  to  be  taken  to  port  for  the  most 
detailed  inspection;  and  to  put  a  climax  to  all  imaginable  vexations, 
the  delays  within  which  the  proof  of  innocence  had  to  be  submitted 
and  the  time  allowed  to  institute  legal  action  were  reduced  to  an  un- 
heard-of short  space  of  time.  One  could  not  but  think  that  the  means 
for  the  final  destruction  of  maritime  commerce  had  then  been  ex- 
hausted. But  the  neutral  nations  were  still  enjoying  a  last  privilege 
for  their  navigation :  the  exemption  of  their  merchantmen  from  search 
in  case  they  were  navigating  under  the  convoy  of  a  war-ship  of  their 
State,  providing  the  commander  of  such  ship  gave  assurances  that  the 
vessel  entrusted  to  his  protection  carried  no  contraband.  England, 
however,  now  undertook  to  annul  this  privilege,  and  along  with  it  to 
put  an  end  to  all  traffic  between  the  neutrals  and  the  enemies. 

II.  The  So-called  Second  Armed  Neutrality,  1800-1801 

§  //. — For  the  purpose  of  determining  absolutely  the  nationality 
and  cargo  of  ships  sailing  under  the  neutral  flag,  the  belligerents  exer- 
cised a  right  of  search,  and  since  the  last  maritime  war  there  was  no 
end  to  the  controversy  as  to  the  conditions  and  limits  of  this  right. 
England  in  particular  increased  this  measure  of  sea  police  until  it 
attained  the  proportions  of  a  formal  inquisition,  and  finally  established 
the  principle  that  a  war-ship  which  resisted  the  search  of  vessels  under 
its  convoy,  might  be  confiscated  as  well.  After  a  Danish  captain  of 
frigate  had  refused  an  English  ship  permission  to  search  vessels  under 
his  protection,  the  English  Ambassador,  on  April  10,  1800,  not  only 
demanded  from  the  Danish  Government  apologies  for  the  act  of  the 
officer,  but  also  an  indemnification  for  the  offense  against  the  British 
flag.^  Count  Bernstorff,  on  April  19,  in  clear  and  dignified  manner, 
refused  to  comply  with  the  demand.  It  so  happened  that  in  the  month 
of  July  following,  the  Danish  frigate  Freya,  which  also  had  opposed 
search  of  the  merchantmen  under  her  convoy,  was,  after  brave  resist- 
ance, seized  along  with  the  merchant  vessels  and  brought  into  an 
English  port.  It  now  was  the  turn  of  Denmark  to  demand  satisfac- 
tion,   England,  however,  again  pretended  to  be  the  offended  party  and 


'Christian  Giinther,  Count  von  Bernstorff,  since  the  death  of  Count  Andreas 
Peter  von   Bernstorff    (1797),  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


BERGBOHM  17 

sent  to  Copenhagen  her  own  emissary,  accompanied  by  a  fleet  squadron 
under  an  admiral  in  order  to  reach  a  settlement  with  regard  to  the  dis- 
putes that  had  arisen.  Count  Bernstorff  proposed  the  Emperor  of 
Russia  as  arbitrator  or  mediator;  England  preferred,  however,  to 
reach  an  understanding  with  the  Danish  Government  without  the  in- 
tervention of  a  third  party,  and  on  August  29  she  concluded  with  the 
Danish  Government  a  preliminary  convention  by  which  the  case  of 
the  Freya  was  settled,  but  the  legal  question  in  reference  thereto  left 
open. 

§  ys. — Deeply  vexed  by  the  egotism  of  Austria  and  of  England, 
Emperor  Paul  had  withdrawn  from  the  alliance  with  the  Powers 
against  France  and,  won  over  by  the  courtesy  of  Bonaparte,  the  First 
Consul,  he  suddenly  changed  his  entire  policy,  and  decidedly  in  favor 
of  France.  When  England  now  proclaimed  principles  whose  practical 
enforcement  threatened  to  lead  to  the  final  destruction  of  the  strangled 
commerce  of  the  neutrals,  the  Emperor  conceived  the  plan  to  meet 
the  unbearable  tyranny  in  the  same  manner  which  had  proved  itself 
so  effective  in  the  North  American  War  of  Independence.  Upon  re- 
ceiving the  first  news  of  the  demands  which  England  exacted  from 
Denmark,  he  had  a  considerable  fleet  outfitted  and  on  August  27, 
through  a  declaration,  he  invited  the  Cabinets  of  Denmark,  Sweden 
and  Prussia  to  a  renewal  of  the  armed  neutrality.  Two  days  later  he 
ordered  the  seizure  of  all  English  goods  within  his  States  and  on 
November  7  he  laid  an  embargo  upon  all  English  ships  within  Russian 
ports,  although  the  treaty  of  March  25,  1793.  did  not  permit  him  to 
do  so  even  in  case  of  war. 

The  invitation  to  renew  the  armed  neutrality  was  accepted  and  on 
December  16  and  18,  respectively,  1800,  the  Scandinavian  States  and 
Prussia  signed  at  Saint  Petersburg  conventions  with  Russia  by  which, 
in  analogy  with  the  neutrality  treaties  of  1780  and  1781,  they  united 
for  the  common  protection  of  neutral  maritime  commerce,  this  time, 
however,  with  the  expressed  intention  of  together  denying  the  en- 
croachments of  England.  Only  two  new  provisions  were  added.  The 
first  of  these  enjoined  upon  the  commander  of  a  blockading  fleet  the 
duty  of  informing  the  neutral  ship  which  intended  to  enter  the  port, 
of  the  state  of  blockade  of  the  harbor  ;  the  other  declared  that  a  declara- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  commander  of  the  convoy  to  the  effect  that  the 
vessels  sailing  under  the  protection  of  the  war  flag  carried  no  contra- 
band, should  exclude  any  special  examination  on  the  part  of  the  ships 


18  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  the  belligerent.  In  addition  to  all  this,  provision  was  made  for 
special  marks  by  which  the  nationality  of  the  ships  was  to  be  indicated. 

England  which  was  in  better  condition  now  than  in  the  year  1780,  re- 
garded the  convention  as  an  hostile  act  and  demanded  explanations 
from  Denmark.  Count  Bernstorff  made  a  short  and  plain  answer  em- 
phasizing the  fact  that  the  Danish  Government  had  never  abandoned 
the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780.  In  the  English  Par- 
liament a  strong  opposition  manifested  itself  against  the  systematic 
stirring  up  of  the  northern  Powers,  and  Prussia,  the  ally  of  England, 
decidedly  disapproved  of  the  measures  which  the  British  Cabinet  in- 
tended to  employ. 

In  spite  of  all  this,  an  embargo  was  laid,  January  14,  1801,  upon  all 
Russian,  Danish  and  Swedish  ships  which  were  then  in  English  waters, 
and  a  fleet  dispatched  to  the  North  Sea.  When  the  latter  appeared  in 
the  Kattegat,  the  Danish  Government,  on  March  29,  laid  in  turn  an 
embargo  upon  all  English  ships ;  but  already  on  the  following  day  the 
English  under  Nelson  forced  their  way  through  the  Sound,  and  on 
April  2  defeated  the  Danish  fleet  in  the  Copenhagen  roadway.  Thus, 
Danish  resistance  had  been  broken,  and  in  the  course  of  the  armistice 
concluded  on  April  9,  the  principles  of  the  neutrality  convention  of 
December,   1800,  were  suspended. 

§  7J. — In  the  meantime  a  new  emperor  had  ascended  the  Russian 
throne  and  the  Government  of  Alexander  I  showed  itself  quite  ready 
to  accept  all  of  England's  pretensions  with  regard  to  the  "prerogatives 
of  a  belligerent  Power."  On  May  18  it  released  all  the  English  ships 
which  had  been  placed  under  embargo,  and  on  June  17,  1801,  concluded 
with  England  a  convention  which,  with  regard  to  the  matter  of  the 
armed  neutrality,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  complete  victory  for  England. 
Commercial  traffic  with  the  colonies  was  granted  to  the  neutrals, 
although  under  certain  limitations  contained  in  an  explanatory  article 
of  October  20;  in  all  other  respects,  however,  England  secured  the 
recognition  of  her  old  and  new  maxims.  In  the  place  of  the  principle 
"free  ship,  free  goods"  there  figured  expressly  this  other  principle  that 
the  flag  did  not  cover  the  cargo,  and  that  the  belligerent,  even  as  on 
the  basis  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare,  might  seize  goods  of  his  enemy 
wherever  they  were  foimd ;  the  definition  of  blockade  as  the  armed 
neutrality  would  have  it  understood,  was  weakened  by  changing  the 
word  "and"  into  "or" :  to  make  the  blockade  eflFective  no  longer  re- 
quired that  the  port  should  be  closed  by  "vessels  stationed  sufficiently 


BERGBOHM  19 

near  and  in  such  a  way"  that  entrance  into  such  port  should  be  con- 
fronted with  evident  danger,  but  it  would  be  enough  if  ships  were 
"stationary  or  sufficiently  near" ;  and  finally  in  so  far  as  the  right  of 
search  was  concerned,  it  was  decided  that  all  search  should  be  refrained 
from  "if  the  papers  are  found  in  form,  and  if  there  exists  no  good 
motive  for  suspicion."  No  reference  was  made  to  the  authority 
of  the  commander  of  the  convoy  to  resist  any  interference  with 
those  entrusted  to  his  protection,  provided  he  had  guaranteed  the 
innocence  of  the  articles  transported.  The  right  of  search  was  fur- 
thermore restricted  to  national  war-ships  and,  hence,  denied  to  cor- 
sairs meeting  with  ships  sailing  under  convoy.  But  in  practice  this 
was  of  little  importance  since  the  corsairs,  through  all  times,  dared  to 
approach  such  transports  only  in  exceptional  cases. 

The  Russian  Government  promised  furthermore  to  invite  the  two 
Scandinavian  Powers  to  accede  to  this  convention — Prussia  was  re- 
garded as  no  longer  of  any  account  in  this  matter.  Count  Bernstorff 
went  in  person  to  London  in  order  to  obtain,  if  possible,  some  conces- 
sion for  his  country ;  but  his  efforts  proved  in  vain.  The  Swedish 
Government  likewise  was  opposed  to  recognizing  the  principles  of  June 
17;  and  left  in  the  lurch  by  Russia  they  had  to  cease  their  opposition; 
as  a  result,  Denmark  signed  a  treaty  with  England  on  October  23,  1801, 
and  Sweden  on  March  30,  1802.  by  which  they  joined  the  Russo- 
English  convention.    This  was  the  end  of  the  second  armed  neutrality. 

III.  The  Right  of  the  Neutrals,  1801-1856 

§  7^. — After  the  last  attempt  to  secure  the  interests  of  the  neutrals 
with  regard  to  the  inconsiderate  fury  of  the  parties  to  the  war  had 
utterly  failed,  nothing,  during  the  short  period  of  peace  and  the  con- 
flicts which  followed  soon  thereupon,  is  further  heard  as  to  whether 
the  neutrals  were  still  entitled  to  any  opinion,  hence  even  less  to  a  will 
to  assert  an  opinion  or  to  lay  claim  to  any  right. 

The  victory  of  the  English  at  Trafalgar  on  October  21,  1805,  over 
the  French  fleet  convinced  Napoleon  that  all  efforts  against  the  Eng- 
lish on  the  seas  would  be  fruitless.  He  had  but  one  means  left  to 
accomplish  the  defeat  of  the  English  ;  he  could  reduce  his  opponent  by 
a  continental  blockade.  He  began  by  demanding,  in  the  treaty  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1806,  that  Prussia  close  Hanover,  the  Weser  and  the  Elbe 
to  the  English.     To  this  England  answered  on  May  18  by  declaring  a 


20  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

blockade  of  all  the  ports  from  Brest  even  to  the  Elbe.  Napoleon  re- 
plied to  this  measure  with  the  so-called  continental  system  established 
by  the  decree  of  Berlin,  November  21,  1806,^  and  of  Milan,  Decem- 
ber 17,  1807;  England  again  increased  the  blockades  in  corresponding 
manner  through  several  orders  in  council  in  the  course  of  the  years 
1807  and  1808.^ 

With  this,  in  so  far  as  there  still  were  neutrals,  any  difference 
there  had  been  as  to  permitted  and  unpermitted  commerce  of  the 
neutrals  was  wiped  out.  The  momentary  efforts  of  Russia,  of  Den- 
mark and  of  Sweden,  to  secure  recognition  for  the  rights  of  neutrals, 
were  without  any  practical  results :  "The  frenzied  acts  of  the  con- 
tinental system,  and  the  race  between  England  and  France  as  to  which 


iThe  Berlin  decree  contains  the  following  principal  provisions :  the  whole 
of  Great  Britain  is  declared  in  a  state  of  blockade;  any  and  all  traffic,  any  and 
all  correspondence  with  Great  Britain  is  forbidden ;  letters  and  other  postal 
parcels  addressed  to  England  or  to  an  Englishman,  or  if  written  in  English 
are  to  be  confiscated;  all  English  subjects  falling  into  the  hands  of  troops  of 
Francfe  or  of  her  ally  are  to  be  treated  as  war  prisoners;  all  English  property 
shall  be  confiscated ;  any  and  all  traffic  in  English  goods  is  forbidden ;  to  no 
port  may  be  admitted  any  ship  coming  from  England  or  from  her  colonies  or 
having  put  in  at  an  English  harbor  in  the  course  of  its  trip.  The  Milan  decree 
contained  these  additional  provisions :  any  ship,  no  matter  of  what  nationality, 
which  has  submitted  to  search  by  an  English  ship  or  been  allowed  to  be  taken 
to  an  English  port  or  delivered  any  articles  whatever  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment, is  to  be  regarded  as  denationalized  and  may  be  confiscated  as  if  it 
were  an  English  vessel;  any  ship,  no  matter  to  what  nationality  it  may  belong 
and  no  matter  what  cargo  it  may  carry,  coming  from  an  English  port  or  from 
an  English  colony  or  from  a  colony  occupied  by  England,  and  similarly  any 
ship  destined  for  England  or  her  colonies  or  places  occupied  by  English  troops — 
shall  without  further  ceremonies  be  adjudicated  to  the  captor  as  a  legitimate 
prize.  This  continental  system  applied  not  merely  to  France  and  her  allies,  but 
as  well  to  any  States  whatever  under  the  influence  of  France :  for  the  reason 
that  Napoleon's  brother,  King  Louis  of  Holland  had  dared,  among  other  insub- 
ordinations, to  show  consideration  in  the  enforcement  of  the  decrees,  he  was 
deposed  by  the  Emperor;  because  Portugal  was  not  able  to  carry  out  the  system 
against  England  with  all  necessary  strength,  war  was  made  upon  her;  and  the 
commercial  ordinances,  opposed  to  the  continental  system,  and  to  which  Russia 
along  with  Denmark,  Austria  and  Sweden  had  acceded  became  likewise  a  cause 
for  breaking  with  Napoleon. 

2The  Order  in  Council  of  November  11,  1807,  was  especially  remarkable;  it 
was  repeatedly  modified  and  soon  completely  abandoned  with  regard  to  whole 
countries  and  stretches  of  coast.  Tt  ordered,  for  instance :  to  these  restrictions, 
as  though  they  were  most  closely  blockaded  by  English  war-ships,  are  subject 
all  ports  of  France,  of  her  allies,  of  all  countries  which,  though  not  at  war, 
have  yet  excluded  English  ships,  and  in  general  any  and  all  other  ports  and 
colonies  of  England's  enemies ;  any  ship  sailing  to  these  colonies  or  lands  or 
coming  therefrom,  is  to  be  treated,  together  with  its  entire  cargo,  as  a  legiti- 
mate prize;  all  goods  which  are  the  products  of  these  lands,  etc.,  shall  be 
regarded  as  contraband,  etc. 


BERGBOHM  21 

of  the  two  could  show  the  least  regard  for  any  international  law"'- 
came  to  an  end  only  with  the  defeat  of  Napoleon. 

§  /j. — If  ever  the  need  was  felt  for  an  international  code  of  mari- 
time laws,  it  was  in  those  days  when  the  fearful  struggle  between  the 
two  West  European  maritime  Powers  destroyed  the  last  traces  "of  a 
right  of  the  neutrals,"  which  had  at  one  time  been  so  emphatically 
championed  by  the  armed  neutrality. 

For  the  time  being,  however,  no  agreement  could  be  reached  with 
regard  to  principles  on  the  basis  of  which  the  commerce  of  the  neu- 
trals with  the  enemy  was  to  be  carried  out:  neither  the  principles  of 
England,  nor  those  of  the  armed  neutrality  were  accepted  by  the  con- 
gresses which,  after  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  were  to  reorganize  the 
European  relations.  On  the  contrary ;  already  in  the  first  meeting, 
February  5,  1814,  of  the  congress  held  at  Chatillon,  Lord  Castlereagh, 
the  representative  of  England,  had  secured  action  to  the  eflfect  that 
maritime  questions  should  not  be  discussed.  Neither  during  the  peace 
parleys  at  Paris  nor  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  were  the  rights  of  the 
neutrals  even  referred  to.^ 

The  States  were  therefore  compelled  to  act  in  these  matters  accord- 
ing to  existing  treaties.  The  numerous  treaties  of  this  period,  from 
the  Vienna  Congress  down  to  the  Paris  peace  of  1856,  closely  follow 
the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality ;  not  one  of  these  treaties  re- 
turns again  to  the  principles  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare.  On  principle, 
England  refrained  during  all  this  time  from  entering  into  any  con- 
tractual agreement  regarding  the  rights  of  neutrality.  No  State  would 
willingly  have  retu'-ned  to  the  old  maxims,  and  the  British  Government 
was  loath  to  accept  the  "privileges"  of  the  "new  maritime  laws." 

The  first  great  European  war,  after  the  long  period  of  peace,  and 
especially  the  alliance  of  England  with  France  matured  the  fruit  which 
the  Versailles  peace  of  1783  had  denied  to  the  neutrals.  When  the 
interested  States  had  renounced  privateering  for  the  duration  of  the 
Crimean  War,  and  England  had  become  convinced  that  she  had  to  sur- 
render at  last  the  rigorous  ''old  maritime  law,"  the  Powers  present  at 
the  Paris  Peace  Congress,  by  means  of  the  declaration  of  maritime 
laws  of  April  16.  1856,  to  which  almost  all  the  States  of  the  European 


iWurm,  in  Deutsche  Vicrteljahrs-Schrift,  1855,  pt.  3,  p.  353. 
-Treitschke,  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  neunzehnten  Jahrhundert,  vol.  1    (1879), 
pp.  542   ct  seq. 


22  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

family  of  nations  had  acceded/  guaranteed  in  the  memorable  four 
points  even  the  rights  of  the  neutral  maritime  commerce  in  accordance 
with  the  postulates  of  the  armed  neutrality.  The  four  points  referred 
to  read  as  follows : 

1.  Privateering  is  and  shall  remain  abolished; 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy  goods,  with  the  exception  of  con- 
traband ; 

3.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband,  are  free  under 
the  flag  of  the  enemy  f 

4.  To  be  binding,  blockades  must  be  effective,  that  is  to  say,  they 
must  be  maintained  by  war  forces  of  such  sufficiency  as  will  actually 
prevent  access  to  the  enemy  coast  territory. 


BLUNTSCHLI:  Bas  Moderne   Volkerrecht  der  Civilisirten  Staten. 
Third  edition  revised  and  enlarged.     Nordlingen,   1878. 

Johann  Caspar  Bluntschli.  Swiss-German  publicist  and  professor;  born  in 
1808;  died  in  1881;  member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law;  a  prolific 
author  of  world-wide  reputation  of  treatises  on  various  branches  of  public  law. 
In  the  domain  of  international  law  he  is  best  known  for  his  work  entitled 
Das  moderne  volkerrecht  der  civilisirten  staten,  the  first  edition  of  which  ap- 
peared in  German  in  1868.  In  1870  it  was  translated  into  French  by  Lardy,  un- 
der the  title  of  Le  droit  international  codifie,  a  third  edition  of  which  appeared 
in  1881,  with  the  cooperation  of  the  learned  author. 

Bluntschli's  work  states  international  law  in  the  form  of  a  code,  following 
the  example  of  the  German-American  publicist,  Francis  Lieber,  who  had  codified 
the  laws  of  warfare  on  land  in  the  famous  Instructions  issued  by  the  United 
States  in  1863,  and  consists  of  862  articles.  The  various  articles  are  followed  by 
historical  and  critical  notes  when  deemed  necessary  to  explain  or  to  justify  the 

^Spain  and  Mexico  rejected  point  1;  the  United  States  of  America  was 
almost  on  the  point  of  accepting  it,  on  the  condition,  however,  that  the  freedom 
of  private  property,  even  of  enemy  property,  should  be  in  principle  accepted  to 
extend  to  the  seas,  even  as  it  had  been  recognized  in  warfare  on  land.  Neither 
of  the  three  named  countries  found  any  objection  to  the  other  three  points. 
Meanwhile,  and  after  England  had  refused  to  accept  the  conditions  of  the 
United  States,  she  declared  that  the  four  points  were  inseparable  and  that 
recognition  of  all  four  together  must  be  obtained.  Therefore,  the  opposition 
of  the  three  States  named  toward  the  tliree  last  points  in  question,  must  be 
regarded  as  undecided,  as  long  as  England   persists  in  her  attitude. 

^This  principle,  which  contains  a  further  preference,  had  not  been  asserted 
by  the  armed  neutrality.     See  Bergbohm,  p.  145,  note  5. 


BLUNTSCHLI  23 

text.  The  treatise  is  not  a  codification  of  international  law  as  it  actually  existed 
at  the  time  of  publication,  but  rather  a  concise  statement  of  what  the  learned 
author  believed  the  law  was  or  should  be.  The  book  has  been  translated  into 
various  foreign  languages  and  possesses  very  great  authority. 


§  44.7. — A  just  war  is  the  necessary  condition  of  any  military  alli- 
ance. Treaties  whose  object  it  might  be  to  attack  a  foreign  State,  in 
common  and  for  no  legitimate  cause,  constitute  a  violation  of  interna- 
tional law  and  are  not  binding.  Allies  are  never  obliged  to  take  part 
in  a  war  whose  injustice  is  evident. 

It  is  the  object  of  defensive  alliances  to  defend,  either  the  existing  right,  or 
at  least  the  existing  state  of  conditions.  It  is  not  necessary  that  at  the  moment 
of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  one  of  the  allies  should  be  threatened  with  war. 
States  which  would  defend  their  neutrality  with  armed  forces  may  indeed  form 
an  alliance  between  themselves  for  the  purpose,  in  time  of  war,  of  causing  the 
rights  of  the  neutrals  to  be  respected.  For  instance:  the  armed  neutrality  of 
1780  between  the  northern  maritime  Powers. 

§  /^4. — The  neutral  flag  covers  not  merely  the  neutral  vessel,  but 
even  the  cargo  belonging  to  citizens  of  one  of  the  belligerent  States, 
with  the  exception  of  war  contraband. — Free  vessel,  free  cargo. 

1.  The  principle  that  the  neutral  flag,  that  is  to  say,  the  neutrality  and  the 
nationality  of  the  vessel,  covers  the  merchandise,  even  when  the  latter  belongs 
to  merchants  of  the  enemy  nation,  was  established  for  the  first  time  in  a  treaty 
concluded  in  1650  between  Holland  and  Spain  ;  it  was  not  more  generally  recog- 
nized until  the  establishment  of  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  proposed 
by  Russia  during  the  war  between  France  and  England  in  1780.  The  maritime 
Powers,  and  especially  England,  had  been  wont  to  seize  enemy  merchandise  on 
board  neutral  vessels;  France  at  times  went  so  far  as  to  seize  the  neutral  ves- 
sel, in  case  it  carried  enemy  merchandise ;  not  one  of  these  principles  was,  how- 
ever, universally  accepted.  England  still  clung  to  the  ancient  usages,  and  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  while  expressing  the  desire  that  more  just  prin- 
ciples might  be  established,  regarded  this  right  as  unattackable.  The  interna- 
tional treaties  concluded  at  this  time  differed  one  from  the  other;  thus  for 
instance,  England  and  the  United  States  in  their  treaty  of  1794  admit  the 
principle  that  the  neutral  vessel  is  free,  but  that  the  enemy  merchandise  may 
be  confiscated ;  still,  in  its  treaty  of  1778  with  France,  and  in  its  treaty  of  1785 
with  Prussia,  the  United  States  had  established  the  principle  that  the  flag 
covers  the  merchandise.  In  1799,  numerous  negotiations  were  entered  into 
between  Prussia  and  the  United  States,  and  thanks  to  the  obstinacy  of  Prussia, 
in  the  new  treaty  of  1799  the  liberal  principle  of  the  treaty  of  1785  was  again 


24  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

adopted. 1  It  was  not  until  1856,  at  the  Paris  Congress,  that  by  a  declaration 
of  April  16,  the  Powers  recognized  at  last  the  principle  that  "the  neutral  flag 
covers  enemy  merchandise,  with  the  exception  of  war  contraband."  The  neutral 
vessel  is  part  of  the  neutral  territory.  For  the  same  reason  that  enemy  mer- 
chandise deposited  on  land  in  a  neutral  port  can  not  be  declared  legitimate 
prize,  in  the  same  way  enemy  merchandise  on  board  a  neutral  vessel  may  not 
be  captured.  The  admission  of  this  principle  incontestably  marks  a  step  in 
advance,  and  by  itself  is  an  important  barrier  raised  against  the  barbarous  law 
of  maritime  prizes. 

§  8oi. — The  transportation  of  war  contraband  is  forbidden.  The 
belligerents  have  the  right  to  prevent  the  providing  and  transporting 
of  war  contraband,  even  when  carried  on  board  neutral  vessels  or 
when  furnished  by  neutrals. 

1.  Neutral  commerce  must  not  abuse  its  freedom,  to  give  aid  and  assistance 
to  the  belligerents,  for  the  reason  that  such  assistance  is  the  negation  of  neu- 
trality. The  word  contraband  {contra  bannum)  dates  back  to  the  middle  ages, 
to  the  time  when  the  Popes  excommunicated  those  who  furnished  weapons  to 
the  infidels.  The  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  can  not  confer  the  right  to 
support  one  of  the  belligerents.  The  nations  at  war  can  not  tolerate  traffic  in 
contraband  without  running  great  risks ;  therefore  they  have  the  right  to  con- 
fiscate it,  because  the  fact  of  importing  it  into  the  territory  of  the  adversary 
presupposes  on  the  part  of  the  neutrals  the  intention  of  supplying  help  to  the 
adversary. 

2.  The  aforementioned  rule  is,  in  principle,  recognized  by  all  civilized  States, 
and  especially  by  the  neutral  States;  see  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  and  the 
Paris  treaty  of  18S6.  But  at  all  times  there  have  arisen  misunderstandings  as 
to  what  should  be  understood  by  the  term  "contraband"  and  as  to  the  means  of 
preventing  it.  In  her  position  as  the  first  maritime  Power,  England  sought  as 
much  as  possible  to  extend  the  notion  of  contraband  and  the  measures  calcu- 
lated to  repress  it.  The  neutrals,  on  the  contrary,  desirous  to  protect  their 
commerce,  have  sought  to  restrict  the  term  "contraband"  to  as  small  a  number 
of  objects  as  possible,  and  to  reduce  the  harsh  measures  resorted  to  against 
nations  trafficking  in  contraband.  The  two  tendencies  have  been  brought  nearer 
each  other  gradually,  although  in  the  practice  of  the  Governments  differences 
may  still  be  observed.  All  maritime  Powers  are  interested  in  seeing  that  the 
commerce  of  the  neutrals  suffer  as  little  as  possible  from  war;  they  are  there- 
fore endeavoring  to  remove  existing  obstacles,  not  any  one  of  them  being 
certain  that  its  interests  may  not  some  day  be  seriously  injured  by  too  violent 
repressive  measures. 

§  824. — When  the  neutral  State  resolves  to  have  neutral  merchant- 
men escorted  by  war-ships  and  assures  the  belligerents  that  the  ves- 

^Wheaton,  International  Law,  §§  456,  469. 


BLUNTSCHLI  25 

sels  thus  convoyed  are  not  carrying  contraband  merchandise,  no  search- 
ing of  the  vessels  shall  take  place.  The  war  vessels  of  the  belligerent 
Powers  must  content  themselves  with  verifying  the  powers  of  the 
vessel  commissioned  by  the  neutral  State  to  escort  the  convoy,  and 
through  its  intermediary  receiving  the  information  of  which  they  have 
need. 

When  the  neutral  State  takes  it  upon  itself  to  control  and  supervise  the  neu- 
tral vessels,  when  it  designates  a  national  vessel  to  accompany  the  convoy  and 
guarantees  that  the  convoy  does  not  transport  prohibited  merchandise,  it  is 
entitled  to  have  the  honor  of  its  flag  respected;  in  such  case,  the  search  of  the 
vessel  must  be  omitted,  since  it  is  a  mere  measure  of  necessity  and  authorized 
by  the  laws  of  warfare  only  to  remove  all  suspicion  in  regard  to  the  conduct 
of  the  neutrals.  This  right  has  some  times  been  controverted,  especially  by 
England.  Neutral  States  may  demand  that  they  be  believed  upon  their  honor, 
since  they  are  living  in  friendly  relations  with  the  belligerents.  The  armed 
neutrality  of  the  northern  Powers,  with  which  may  be  compared  the  treaty  of 
1801  between  Russia  and  England,  formulated  this  principle  as  follows : 

The  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  vessel  or  vessels  of 
the  royal  or  imperial  navy,  which  accompanies  the  convoy  of  one  or  more 
merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  carries  no  contraband  merchandise,  must  be 
considered  sufficient,  and  that  thereupon  there  shall  be  no  occasion  to  visit 
either  his  vessel  or  those  of  his  convoy. 

The  better  to  ensure  to  these  principles  the  respect  due  to  stipulations 
dictated  by  a  disinterested  desire  to  maintain  the  inalienable  rights  of 
neutral  nations,  and  to  give  further  proof  of  their  devotion  to  and  love 
of  justice,  the  high  contracting  Powers,  hereby  bind  themselves  most  sol- 
emnly to  issue  new  and  strict  orders  forbidding  their  captains,  whether  of 
ships  of  the  line  or  of  merchant  sliips,  to  load,  hold,  or  conceal  on  board 
any  articles  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  present  convention,  might  be  con- 
sidered contraband,  and  to  see,  respectively,  to  the  execution  of  the  orders 
that  they  shall  have  published  in  their  admiralties  and  wherever  else  it 
may  be  necessary,  with  a  view  to  which  the  ordinance,  which  shall  renew 
this  prohibition  under  the  severest  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the  end 
of  the  present  act,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  allegation  of  ignorance 
thereof. 

The  two  high  contracting  Parties,  wishing  also  to  prevent  all  subject  of 
dissension  in  future,  by  limiting  the  right  of  search  of  merchant  ships  going 
under  convoy,  to  those  cases  only,  in  which  the  belligerent  Power  might 
experience  a  real  prejudice  by  the  abuse  of  the  neutral  flag,  have  agreed: 

1.  That  the  right  of  searching  merchant  ships  belonging  to  the  subjects  of 
one  of  the  contracting  Powers,  and  navigating  under  convoy  of  a  ship  of 
war  of  the  said  Power,  shall  only  be  exercised  by  ships  of  war  of  the 
belligerent  Party,  and  shall  never  extend  to  letters  of  marque,  privateers,  or 


26  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

other  vessels,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  imperial  or  royal  fleet  of  Their 
Majesties,  but  which  their  subjects  shall  have  fitted  out  for  war. 

2.  That  the  proprietors  of  all  merchant  ships  belonging  to  the  subjects  of 
one  of  the  contracting  Sovereigns,  which  shall  be  destined  to  sail  under 
convoy  of  a  ship  of  war,  shall  be  required,  before  they  receive  their  sailing 
orders,  to  produce  to  the  commander  of  the  convoy,  their  passports  and  cer- 
tificates, or  sea  letters,  in  the  form  annexed  to  the  present  treaty. 

3.  That  when  such  ship  of  war,  having  under  convoy  merchant  ships,  shall 
be  met  with  by  a  ship  or  ships  of  war  of  the  other  contracting  Party,  who 
shall  thef^  be  in  a  state  of  war,  in  order  to  avoid  all  disorder,  they  shall  keep 
out  of  cannon  shot,  unless  the  state  of  the  sea,  or  the  place  of  meeting,  ren- 
der a  nearer  approach  necessary ;  and  the  commander  of  the  ship 
of  the  belligerent  Power  shall  send  a  boat  on  board  the  convoy,  where  they 
shall  proceed  reciprocally  to  the  verification  of  the  papers  and  certificates 
that  are  to  prove  on  one  part,  that  the  ship  of  war  is  authorized  to  take 
under  its  escort  such  or  such  merchant  ships  of  its  nation,  laden  with  such 
a  cargo,  and  for  such  a  port ;  on  the  other  part,  that  the  ship  of  war  of  the 
belligerent  Party  belongs  to  the  imperial  or  royal  fleet  of  Their  Majesties. 

4.  This  verification  made,  no  search  shall  take  place,  if  the  papers  are 
found  in  form,  and  if  there  exists  no  good  motive  for  suspicion.  In  the  con- 
trary case,  the  commander  of  the  neutral  ship  of  war  (being  duly  required 
thereto  by  the  commander  of  the  ship  or  ships  of  war  of  the  belligerent 
Power)  is  to  bring  to  and  detain  his  convoy  during  the  time  necessary  for 
the  search  of  the  ships  which  compose  it,  and  he  shall  have  the  faculty  of 
naming  and  delegating  one  or  more  officers  to  assist  at  the  search  of  the 
said  ships,  which  shall  be  done  in  his  presence,  on  board  each  merchant  ship, 
conjointly  with  one  or  more  officers  appointed  by  the  commander  of  the  ship 
of  the  belligerent  Party. 

5.  If  it  happen  that  the  commander  of  the  ship  or  ships  of  the  Power  at 
war,  having  examined  the  papers  found  on  board,  and  having  interrogated 
the  master  and  crew  of  the  ship,  shall  see  just  and  sufficient  reason  to  detain 
the  merchant  ship  in  order  to  proceed  to  an  ulterior  search,  he  shall  notify 
such  intention  to  the  commander  of  the  convoy,  who  shall  have  the  power  to 
order  an  officer  to  remain  on  board  the  ship  thus  detained,  and  to  assist  at 
the  examination  of  the  cause  of  her  detention.  The  merchant  ship  shall  be 
carried  immediately  to  the  nearest  and  most  convenient  port  belonging  to 
the  belligerent  Power,  and  the  ulterior  search  shall  be  carried  on  with  all 
possible  diligence. 

§  825. — If  upon  the  examination  of  the  ship's  papers  a  grave  sus- 
picion arises  to  the  eflfect  that  the  convoy  is  transporting  contraband 
merchandise,  a  search  of  the  suspected  vessel  may  by  exception  be 
made  by  furnishing  to  the  war-ship  escorting  the  convoy  the  means 
of  being  represented  while  the  search  is  being  made.  If  the  com- 
mander of  the  vessel  or  of  the  vessels  of  the  belligerent  Power  be- 
lieves that  he   has  discovered  contraband,   he   must   notify   the   com- 


BLUNTSCHLI  27 

mander  of  the  convoying  vessel,  and  the  latter  may  direct  an  officer 
to  accompany  the  inculpated  vessel  before  the  nearest  prize  council, 
and  to  take  part  in  the  discussions  in  the  interest  of  neutral  commerce. 

1.  The  belligerent  Powers  must  always  see  to  it  that  their  rights  and  their 
interests  are  respected.  It  may  therefore  not  be  required  of  them  that,  upon 
the  testimony  of  the  neutral  State,  they  should  absolutely  renounce  all  subse- 
quent search  of  the  suspected  vessels.  It  is  possible  that  the  neutral  State  itself 
may  have  been  deceived,  or  that  it  may  not  have  proceeded  with  sufficient  care 
in  examining  the  merchandise  put  on  board.  It  may  also  happen  that  the  bellig- 
erent Power  and  the  neutral  State  do  not  agree  upon  the  meaning  to  be  attached 
to  the  word  "contraband,"  that  the  former  may  view  as  contraband  that  which 
the  latter  does  not  believe  is  prohibited  merchandise.  The  principles  admitted 
in  1800,  at  the  time  of  the  second  armed  neutrality,  are  still  in  force  (§  824). ^ 
An  excellent  disposition  is  embodied  in  the  treaty  of  1801  between  England 
and  Russia: 

It  is  in  like  manner  agreed,  that  if  any  merchant  ships  thus  convoyed 
should  be  detained  without  just  and  sufficient  cause,  the  commander  of  the 
ships  or  ships  of  war  of  the  belligerent  Power  shall  not  only  be  bound  to 
make  to  the  owners  of  the  ships  and  of  the  cargo  a  full  and  perfect  compen- 
sation for  all  the  losses,  expenses,  damages  and  costs  occasioned  by  such  a 
detention,  but  shall,  moreover,  undergo  an  ulterior  punishment  for  any  act 
of  violence  or  other  fault  which  he  may  have  committed,  according  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  may  require. 

§  8^0. — A  blockade  which  is  simply  decreed  and  does  not  exist  in 
fact,  is  not  recognized ;  it  is  even  so  with  regard  to  blockades  by 
cruisers  of  no  fixed  station. 

1.  Blockades,  not  merely  of  definite  ports  but  of  a  whole  stretch  of  coast,  are 
also  authorized.  In  such  case,  cruisers  are  charged  with  maintaining  a  regular 
watch  over  such  stretch  of  coast,  on  the  condition  that  such  cruisers  are  part 
of  a  fixed  station.  The  armed  neutrality  of  1780  had  formulated  this  principle 
as  follows: 

The  name  of  blockaded  port  shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking 
Power  has  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to 
render  access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

The  scope  of  this  disposition  was  much  modified  in  the  treaty  of  1801  between 
Russia  and   England,   by  the  substitution  of  the  word  or  in  the  place  of  the 

iHeffter,  §  170. 


28  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

particle  and,  of  the  original  text,  and  thus  the  door  was  again  opened  for  block- 
ades maintained  by  ordinary  cruisers. ^  When  Emperor  Maximilian  of  Mexico 
declared  all  the  Northern  Mexican  ports  in  a  state  of  blockade,  without  placing 
maritime  forces  to  that  effect  (July  9,  1866),  President  Johnson  of  the  United 
States  of  America  declared  officially  that  he  regarded  the  blockade  as  null  and 
void   (August  17,  1866). 

§  8jj. — The  conditions  under  which  the  neutral  vessel  which  has 
violated  the  blockade  may  be  declared  legitimate  prize,  are : 

(a)  That  such  vessel  has  had  knowledge  of  the  effective  existence 
of  the  blockade ; 

(b)  That  it  is  captured  while  it  attempts  to  run  the  blockade. 

1.  Note  to  (a)  above.  See  Articles  821  and  832.  The  neutral  vessel  may  not 
always  plead  the  exception  that  while  informed  of  the  blockade,  it  endeavored 
to  find  out  if  such  blockade  was  really  effective.  The  State  which  blockades  a 
port  can  not  admit  that  without  danger  of  being  captured,  a  vessel  should  run 
the  blockade  under  the  pretext  of  examining  the  surroundings.  If  the  circum- 
stances, especially  the  great  distance  from  the  port  of  departure  show  that  this 
excuse  was  not  chosen  to  attempt  to  run  the  blockade,  then  the  neutral  vessel 
must  be  released. 

2.  Note  to  (b)  above.  As  long  as  the  neutral  vessel  confines  herself  to  pre- 
parations for  an  attempt  to  escape,  if  favorable  circumstances  arise  therefor, 
she  may  not  be  captured,  because  she  has  not  attacked  the  blockade.  She  may 
give  up  the  attempt;  for  the  law  of  nations  punishes  not  the  intention,  but  the 
act.  For  the  same  reason  a  neutral  vessel  may  not  be  seized  so  long  as  she 
remains  at  a  great  distance  from  the  blockaded  port,  because  she  may  still 
change  her  route  and  respect  the  blockade.  She  exposes  herself  to  capture  only 
if  she  comes  near  enough  such  port,  thus  giving  evident  proof  of  wanting  to 
run  the  blockade. 

3.  Nations  blockading  a  port  must  give  credit  to  the  neutrals  for  their  good 
faith. 

Bad  faith  or  guilty  intention  may  not  be  presumed,  but  belligerent  States  may 
not  permit  jeopardy  of  their  rights  by  trusting  to  the  good  faith  of  everyone. 

4.  The  armed  neutrality  of  1800  sought  to  establish  even  more  severe  prin- 
ciples. After  having  been  warned,  the  neutral  vessel  could  not  be  declared 
legitimate  prize  except  when  slie  had  attempted  to  run  the  blockade  by  force  or 
by  ruse.  This  disposition  was  not  embodied  into  the  treaty  of  1801  between  Russia 
and  England,  and  to-day  proof  is  no  longer  required  to  show  that  the  neutral 
vessel  employed  ruse  or  violence 

5.  A  very  dangerous  theory  has  been  formulated  by  Judge  Chase,  in  December, 
1866,  in  the  legal  action  relative  to  the  English  bark  Springbok:  "When  a 
blockaded  port  is  the  destination  of  the  vessel,  the  neutral  vessel  must  be  con- 


^See  Gessner,  p.  167. 


DE  BOECK  29 

demned,  even  when  preliminarily  she  touches  at  a  neutral  port,  no  matter 
whether  or  not  there  is  war  contraband  on  board."  If  this  view  were  to  prevail 
in  practice,  neutral  commerce  would  be  threatened  to  even  a  greater  extent  than 
by  the  blockades  "on  paper"  fortunately  abolished  at  this  time,  especially  if  one 
takes  into  account  the  fact  that  the  neutral  owners  are  obliged  to  appear  before 
a  foreign  prize  council,  which  is  not  strict  in  the  matter  of  proofs,  and  which 
affords  but  few  guaranties  for  the  protection  of  neutral  rights. 


DE  BOECK :  De  la  Propriete  Privee  Ennemie  sous  Paznllon  Ennenii. 

Paris,   1882. 

Jean  Barthelemy  Charles  de  Boeck.  Contemporary  French  publicist ;  born  in 
1856 ;  associate  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law ;  doctor  of  law,  1882 ; 
licentiate  in  law,  1885 ;  member  of  law  faculty  of  Toulouse  and  later  of  Bordeaux 
where  he  taught  Roman  law,  public  international  law  and  private  international 
law.  Among  his  writings  are  a  revised  and  enlarged  edition  of  Despagnet's 
Cours  de  droit  internatiotial  public,  1910,  and  a  memoir,  Histoirc  du  droit  des 
neutres  dans  la  guerre  maritime,  which  was  awarded  a  medal  of  honor  by  the 
Institute  of  France  in  1892. 


Page  f)f,,  §  55. — 1.  Neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port 
to  port  and  along  the  coasts  of  tiie  nations  at  war. 

2.  The  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war  shall 
be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband 
merchandise. 

3.  As  to  the  specification  of  the  above-mentioned  merchandise,  the 
Empress  holds  to  what  is  enumerated  in  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of 
her  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  extending  her  obligations 
to  all  the  Powers  at  war. 

4.  To  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  designation 
shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed 
its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access 
thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

5.  These  principles  shall  serve  as  a  rule  for  proceedings  and  judg- 
ments as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

The  foregoing  constitute  the  proclamation  of  the  rights  of  maritime 
neutrality,  contained  in  the  memorable  declaration  of  the  Russian  Gov- 


30  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ernment,  dated  February  28,  1780.^  Both  neutrals  and  belligerents 
(from  the  latter  must  be  excepted  Great  Britain)  welcomed  the  Rus- 
sian declaration.  Austria,  Prussia,  Holland,  Portugal,  and  the  King- 
dom of  Naples  forwarded  their  adhesion  to  Russia ;  similar  action  was 
taken  by  France,  Spain  and  the  United  States.  On  July  9,  1780,  a 
maritime  convention  was  signed  at  Copenhagen  between  Russia  and 
Denmark,  and  on  July  21 /August  1,  an  identical  convention  was  con- 
cluded between  Russia  and  Sweden.  These  two  conventions  in  their 
Article  3-  contained  four  propositions,  the  first  three  of  which  repro- 
duced the  principles  formulated  in  the  first  four  numbers  of  the  Rus- 
sian declaration :  the  fourth  and  last  proposition  states  "that  vessels 
may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause  and  when  the  facts  are  perfectly 
evident;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  without  delay;  that  the  procedure 
shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and  that,  in  addition  to 
the  compensation  granted  to  vessels  which  have  suffered  loss  without 
having  been  at  fault,  complete  satisfaction  shall  in  each  case  be  ren- 
dered for  the  insult  to  the  flag." — The  armed  neutrality  was  estab- 
lished. 

§  5(5. — The  moment  when  this  great  charter  of  the  rights  of  the  neu- 
trals was  proclaimed,  inscribed  in  the  treaties,  accepted  by  all  the 
neutral  Powers  and  by  all  the  belligerent  parties,  with  one  single  ex- 
ception, was  a  solemn  moment  in  the  history  of  international  maritime 
law.  That  which  gives  great  authority  to  the  system  of  neutrality  is 
the  fact  that,  according  to  the  remark  of  Martens,  the  States  which 
subscribed  to  this  system,  did  not  merely  adopt  it  in  their  relations 
with  Russia ;  "they  adopted  it  also  in  their  mutual  relations,  so  that, 
for  instance,  after  Russia  had  contracted  in  this  respect  with  Denmark, 
Sweden  in  acceding  thereto,  contracted  likewise  with  Denmark ;  the 
United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands,  by  reason  of  their  accession, 
recognized  this  system  not  only  with  regard  to  Russia,  but  also  with 
regard  to  Denmark  and  Sweden ;  and  in  like  manner,  several  of  the 
other  Powers  that  have  since  acceded  thereto,  such  as  Russia,  Austria, 
Portugal,  have  by  that  ver>^  fact  contracted  rights  and  obligations 
toward  each  of  the  Powers  that  had  acceded  to  the  system  before 
them ;  these  conventions  have  therefore  almost  the  force  of  a  general 


^Post.  p.  273.    Answer  of  the  English  Court,  post,  p.  282;  of  the  French  Court, 
post,  p.  284;  followed  by  the  rest  of  the  documents  in  relation  thereto. 
^Post.  p.  311. 


DE  BOECK  31 

treaty  between  the  different  members  of  the  association,  although  not 
identical  in  form/'^ 

§  ^J. — Before  stating  the  immediate  consequences  of  the  first  armed 
neutrality-  let  us  give  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  events  that  brought  about 
this  famous  attempt  to  restrict  the  maritime  rights  of  the  belligerents 
within  wise  limits. 

The  treaties  of  Paris  and  of  Hubertsburg  had  renewed  the  treaties 
of  Utrecht.  But  the  American  War  of  Independence  gradually  led  to 
a  general  struggle  between  the  principal  maritime  Powers  of  Europe : 
the  first  of  these  Powers  which  was  the  more  directly  interested  in  the 
question  and  which  considered  the  Americans  as  rebels,  pretended  to 
forbid  the  neutral  Powers  to  have  any  commercial  relations  with  her 
insurgent  colonies.  The  judges  of  the  English  admiralty — of  whom 
Sir  James  Marriott  was  the  most  redoubtable  adversary'  of  the  rights 
of  the  neutrals — applied  in  the  matter  of  blockade  and  of  war  contra- 
band the  most  elastic  theories  which  were  at  the  same  time  the  most 
fatal  to  neutral  commerce.  British  corsairs  sure  that  but  rarely,  if 
ever,  they  would  be  condemned  to  the  expenses  of  the  trial,  and  even 
less  to  make  compensation,  became  the  scourge  of  this  commerce. 
Hence  the  universal  acclaim  which  welcomed  the  Russian  measure." 

§  5(?. — France,  which  with  singular  haste  had  on  February  6,  1778, 
concluded  with  the  United  States  a  treaty  sanctioning  especially  the 
inviolability  of  the  neutral  flag,*  and  against  which  England  once  more 

^Martens,  Armateurs,  pp.  158-159,  note  ?;/. 

-With  regard  to  the  origins  of  the  armed  neutrality,  see  the  judicious  reflec- 
tions, supported  by  official  documents,  presented  by  Katchenovsky,  Prize  law, 
additional  note,  pp.  70-72.  as  against  the  statement  of  Dohm  and  others  cur- 
rently accepted ;  especially  Gessner,  Droit  des  neufres,  2d  ed.,  pp.  47-48. 

■■"'All  the  neutral  Powers  had  reason  to  complain  of  England.  See,  for  in- 
stance, two  letters  written  by  Joseph  II  to  Count  Belijioso,  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary to  the  Court  of  London,  the  one  dated  July  3,  the  other  September  6, 
1781 ;  cf.  Calvi,  Curiosita  storiche  e  diplomatiche  del  secolo  decimottavo,  Milan, 
1878,  pp.  430-431 :  the  Austrian  Emperor  complains  because  the  English  violate 
the  neutral  flag. 

*This  act  implied  the  recognition  of  the  English  colonies  as  an  independent 
State  and  gave  rise  to  discussions  between  the  Cabinet  of  London  and  that  of 
Paris.  The  arguments  alleged  by  the  French  Government  were  decisive  and 
proved  that  France  was  entitled  to  recognize  the  American-English  colonies  as 
a  belligerent  Power.  Was  France  sufficiently  entitled  to  recognize  them  as  an 
independent  State?  This  is  quite  a  different  question.  The  French  Court  does 
not  seem  to  have  well  grasped  the  difference  between  these  two  points  of  view; 
it  being  furthermore  rather  difficult  to  justify  this  conduct,  it  is  easily  seen  that 
it  did  not  care  to  set  forth  clearly  this  diflFerence. 


32  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

opened  hostilities   in  time  of  peace   without  a   formal   declaration  of 
war/  made  a  different  use  thereof  with  regard  to  the  neutrals. 

The  regulation  of  July  26,  1778,  is  generally  regarded  as  recognizing 
the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods. "^  It  has  always  been  interpreted 
in  this  way  because  it  guarantees  to  the  neutrals  the  freedom  of 
trading  with  the  enemy.  Messrs.  Pistoye  and  Duverdy  make  state- 
ment to  that  effect  in  connection  with  the  conclusions  of  the  com- 
missary of  the  Government  and  of  the  decision  of  the  prize  council 
which  expressed  and  sanctioned  the  contrary  idea  (in  the  affair  of 
Henri  Moser  against  the  Hcraclee,  23  vendemiaire,  year  IX ).^  This 
regulation  states  precisely  the  cases  of  the  seizure  of  neutral  vessels : 
it  has  been  stated  that  its  Article  1  abrogated  the  regulation  of  1744 
which  declared  legitimate  prize  any  article  of  merchandise  grown  or 
manufactured  in  enemy  country  (decision  of  the  prize  council  of  the 
3  ventose,  year  IX).*  The  dispositions  of  this  regulation  with  regard 
to  war  contraband  are  still  in  force :  the  articles  of  war  contraband 
only  will  be  confiscated,  unless  they  amount  to  three-fourths  of  the 
cargo  of  the  vessel  carrying  them.  Article  6  of  the  same  regulation 
which  reproduces  the  regulation  of  1744  upon  this  point,  in  order  to 
obviate  fraudulent  naturalizations,  does  not  regard  as  neutral  subjects 
enemy  subjects  who  have  not  been  naturalized  neutrals  at  least  three 
months  before  the  declaration  of  war,  or  w^ho  have  not  transferred 
their  domicile  into  a  neutral  country  before  this  delay  of  three  months ; 
it  decides  that  if  the  individuals  who  have  been  naturalized  neutrals 
in  any  one  of  the  cases  where  the  legality  of  their  naturalization  is 


^Along  the  coasts  of  France  she  attacked  unexpectedly  the  frigates  Belle- 
Poulc,  Pallas  and  Licorne  and  the  lugger  Coureur;  the  three  last-named  vessels 
were  seized  and  sailed  to  England.  See  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  21.  England  seized 
also  eleven  vessels  from  two  ship-owners  of  Bordeaux,  and  this  in  time  of 
peace :  this  fact  secured  for  the  two  ship-owners  letters  of  reprisals,  dated  June 
29,  1778.  See  Ortolan,  vol.  1,  p.  357,  and  appendix  L,  pp.  466-467.  In  connection 
with  these  matters.  Ortolan  states  on  p.  358  of  volume  1,  that  this  is  one  of  the 
last  two  instances,  and  perhaps  the  last  one,  which  granted  letters  of  reprisals 
in  time  of  peace:  "these  letters,"  he  justly  states,  "were  the  vestiges  of  times 
when  the  social  forces  were  ill-established  and  ill-regulated,  and  when  it  was  left 
to  the  individual  to  secure  justice  of  his  own  authority  and  of  his  own  might." 
The  treaty  of  Versailles  of  September  26,  1786,  between  France  and  Great 
Britain,  in  its  Article  3,  did  not  abolish  the  use  of  these  letters,  but  restricted 
it,  by  reproducing  and  defining  precisely  the  dispositions  of  the  treaty  of  1632 
concluded  between  the  two  Powers.    This  use  is  no  longer  resorted  to. 

^Wheaton,  Histoire,  4th  ed.,  vol.  1,  p.  357;  Gessner,  op.  cit.,  p   48,  note  1. 

•''Pistoye  et  Duverdy,  vol.  1,  pp.  362-364. 

*Ihid.,  pp.  360-361.  In  favor  of  his  claim,  the  captor  presented  an  order  of 
the  day   from  the  Council  of   I'ive  Hundred. 


DE  BOECK  33 

recognized  by  the  regulation,  return  into  the  enemy  country,  there 
again  to  engage  in  commerce,  they  shall  be  treated  as  enemies,  not- 
withstanding the  neutral  passports  with  which  they  may  be  provided.^ 
Article  7,  relative  to  enemy  vessels  which  have  become  neutral  vessels 
by  reason  of  their  sale  to  neutral  subjects,  is  the  textual  reproduction 
of  Article  10  of  the  regulation  of  October  21,  1744:  this  Article  7  of 
the  regulation  of  July  26,  1778,  whose  origin  is  thus  traced  to  an 
earlier  period,  being  actually  in  force,  we  shall  elsewhere  take  oppor- 
tunity to  criticise  its  excessive  and  unjust  rigor.  According  to  Article 
14,  vessels  wrecked  on  the  coasts  of  France  shall  be  regarded  as  if 
they  had  been  captured.* 

Though  this  regulation  was  very  imperfect,  it  marked  a  great 
progress  and  led  to  a  considerable  easement  of  the  French  practice. 
And  in  1780,  the  French  Government  could  with  pride  reply  to  the 
Russian  Government  that  it  had  broken  the  road  into  which  Russia 
was  then  entering,  and  that  France  was  working  in  behalf  of  the 
freedom  of  the  seas. 

§  ^p. — The  armed  neutrality  had  an  almost  immediate  double  result : 
it  led  France,  Spain,  Holland  and  the  United  States  of  America  to 
adopt  a  policy  at  once  moderate  and  equitable  in  regard  to  the  neutral 
nations ;  and  in  the  second  place,  though  England  took  care  not  to 
recognize  the  principles  sanctioned  by  the  Russian  declaration  and 
by  the  treaties  entered  into  between  the  Powers  of  the  Baltic  Sea, 
yet  the  armed  neutrality  made  some  impression  upon  her:  in  1781 
and  in  1782,  secret  instructions  were  issued  to  the  English  privateers 
to  moderate  their  zeal.^  At  the  time  of  the  peace  of  Versailles, 
England,  Spain  and  France  renewed  the  treaties  of  Utrecht. 

§  6o. — What  has  been  the  influence  of  privateering  upon  the  phases 
of  the  struggle  during  the  five  years  of  the  American  War  of  Inde- 
pendence? It  appears  to  have  been  very  small,  if  we  are  to  judge 
by  the  figures  furnished  by  Cauchy.  According  to  this  author,  who 
was  able  to  inform  himself  exactly  upon  the  number  of  prizes  made, 
either  by  national  vessels  or  by  privateers,  during  those  five  years, 
the  number  of  vessels  captured  by  privateers  which  sailed  from 
French  ports  has  not  exceeded  566.  whose  total  value  amounted  to 
28,259,525  livres :  the  port  of  Dunkirk  alone  figures  in  this  result  for 


^Ibid.,  pp.  503-505. 

-Ibid.,  vol.  2,  pp.  89  et  seq. 

^Katchenovsky,  p.  64. 


34  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

27^  captures  of  a  total  value  of  14,839,580  livres.  The  seizures  made 
by  the  vessels  of  the  royal  navy  amounted  in  value  to  not  more  than 
14,000,000,  and  Cauchy  concludes  with  "what  influence  could  a  loss 
reduced  to  these  unimportant  proportions  have  upon  the  commercial 
wealth  of  England?"^ 

§  6i. — Of  the  large  number  of  treaties  concluded  after  the  first 
armed  neutrality,  the  only  one  that  should  be  mentioned  here  is  that 
of  September  10,  1785,  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States.  Its 
Article  22)  contained  the  following  clause:  "If  war  should  arise  be- 
tween the  two  contracting  Parties,  all  merchant  and  trading  vessels 
employed  in  exchanging  the  products  of  different  places,  and  thereby 
rendering  the  necessaries,  conveniences,  and  comforts  of  human  life 
more  easy  to  be  obtained,  and  more  general,  shall  be  allowed  to  pass 
free  and  unmolested ;  and  neither  of  the  contracting  Powers  shall  grant 
or  issue  any  commission  to  any  private  armed  vessels,  empowering 
them  to  take  or  destroy  such  trading  vessels  or  interrupt  such  com- 
merce."^ This  clause  abolishes  privateering  and  the  capture  of  mer- 
chant vessels  by  the  national  vv^ar-ships ;  but  it  does  not  sanction  the 
inviolability  of  enemy  private  property,  except  when  such  property  is 
engaged  in  a  purely  peaceful  commerce. 

The  treaty  of  1785  formulated  the  same  principle  with  regard  to 
warfare  on  land;  both  for  the  latter  and  for  maritime  warfare  it  rep- 
resented the  expression  of  the  firm  convictions  of  the  great  philan- 
thropist and  statesman,  less  Utopian  than  has  frequently  been  stated, 
who  negotiated  this  treaty  with  Prussia :  Franklin  was  the  firm  ad- 
versary of  privateering  and  of  capture,  and  he  declared  that  the  United 
States  wished  to  have  the  abolition  of  this  twofold  institution  inserted 
in  its  treaties,  "though  better  situated  than  any  other  nation  to  profit 
from  privateering."^  In  the  treaties  of  1778  with  France  and  of 
1783  with   Sweden,  both   of  which   were  negotiated  by  Franklin,  we 


^Cauchy,  Du  respect  dc  la  propricte,  pp.  39-40.  Cf.  dc  Lavelcye,  Du  respect 
de  la  propriete  privee  en  temps  dc  guerre,  a  report  presented  to  the  Institute  of 
International  Law  (August,  1875),  p.  32,  note  1.  During  the  war  of  American 
Independence,  France  once  more  returned  to  her  traditional  policy  and  to  her 
most  ancient  laws  (edicts  of  1543  and  of  1584),  which  she  had  given  up  in  1681 
by  way  of  reprisals  against  England,  and  respected  the  enemy  boats  used  in  the 
coastwise  fishing:  Letter  of  Louis  XVI  to  the  admiral  in  command  of  the 
French  fleet,  dated  June  5,  1779.  See  especially  Gessner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  13-14. 
Azuni,  Droit  maritime  de  I'Europe,  vol.  1,  p.  182,  recalls  that  during  this  same 
war  England  did  not  imitate  the  conduct  of  France. 

-Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  66. 

^Whcaton,  op.  cit.,  vol.  1,  pp.  372-373. 


DE  BOECK  35 

find  no  stipulation  similar  to  that  of  the  treaty  of  1785,  nor  in  the 
treaty  negotiated  by  John  Adams  in  1782  with  the  United  Provinces 
of  the  Netherlands.  We  are  permitted  to  suppose  that  if  Frederick 
II  consented  to  sign  a  clause  to  the  effect  that  enemy  private  prop- 
erty would  be  respected  on  land  and  on  sea,  it  is  because  he  felt 
that  neither  a  maritime  war  nor  a  war  on  land  was  possible  between 
Prussia  and  the  United  States  of  America :  this  impossibility,  pointed 
to  by  all  publicists^  did  certainly  not  escape  the  far-sighted  King  of 
Prussia,  and  it  singularly  weakened  the  authority  of  this  treaty ;  it 
was  moreover  not  renewed  in  respect  of  the  clause  relating  to  the 
inviolability  of  private  property  on  the  seas  in  the  treaties  of  1799 
and  of  1829.  In  spite  of  its  ephemeral  existence  and  the  little  author- 
ity of  the  declaration  of  principles  which  it  contains,  the  act  of  1785 
is  nevertheless  an  important  precedent. 

§  62. — More  important  even,  although  it  has  had  no  more  practical 
results,  is  the  declaration  which  took  place  in  France  in  1792,  in  the 
legislative  assembly,  upon  the  twofold  question  of  the  abolition  of 
privateering  and  the  abolition  of  capture :  it  was  the  first  time  that  a 
political  assembly  had  taken  up  this  matter. 

As  spokesman  of  the  committees  on  diplomatic,  naval  and  commer- 
cial affairs,  Mr.  Kersaint,  deputy  from  Paris,  read  on  May  29,  1792, 
the  project  of  a  decree  relative  to  the  suppression  of  privateers  and 
the  abolition  of  the  prize  law  even  though  exercised  by  national  vessels. 
The  project  read  as  follows :  "The  National  Assembly,  in  considera- 
tion of  the  fact  that  war,  being  the  highest  act  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  peoples,  can  not  be  lawfully  waged  except  by  the  nations  them- 
selves and  not  by  private  individuals  and  for  their  own  account ;  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  all  the  civilized  nations  of 
Europe  to  proscribe  and  abjure  the  practice  of  war  by  corsairs  or 
private  ship-owners,  because  such  practice  necessarily  entails  the  viola- 
tion of  property  and  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  by  its  nature  not  being 
subject  to  other  rules  than  those  of  the  blindest  passion,  that  is  to  say, 
to  avidity,  it  is  frequently  accompanied  by  acts  of  inhumanity ;  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  privateering  menaces  equally  the  belligerent  nations  and 
the  nations  at  peace ;  that,  far  from  hastening  the  war  to  an  end,  it 


^Martens  remarked  that  a  war  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States  was 
improbable.  This  observation  which  is  incontrovertibly  true  has  been  made  by 
all  the  publicists.  See  especially  Hautefeuille,  Proprietcs  privees  des  sujets 
belligcrants,  pp.   10-12. 


36  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

embitters  on  the  contrary  the  peoples  whose  citizens  it  ruins ;  that, 
fostering  the  spirit  of  injustice  and  the  incHnation  to  practice  deceit 
and  fraud,  it  is  an  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the  principles  fit  to 
ameliorate  mankind ;  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  if  it  is  of  importance  to 
the  maritime  Powers  mutually  to  protect  themselves  against  the  con- 
sequences of  acts  which  the  individual  might  attempt  to  perpetrate 
under  the  flag  of  the  nations  at  war,  acts  whose  consequences  might 
lead  to  a  general  war,  it  is  equally  of  importance  to  the  honor  of  the 
French  people  to  begin,  by  setting  the  example,  a  reform  and  a  re- 
pression which  to  the  French  people  are  but  a  consequence  of  the 
rights  of  man  and  of  the  constitution,  in  the  defense  of  which  it  has 
taken  up  arms ; 

The  National  Assembly,  realizing  its  duty  of  preventing  and  re- 
ducing the  misfortunes  immediately  following  in  the  trail  of  war  by 
all  means  in  its  power,  declares  urgency  in  the  matter. 

After  having  decreed  urgency,  the  National  Assembly  decrees : 

Article  1.  No  commission  shall  be  granted  to  arm  for  piracy. 

Article  2.  The  owners  of  merchant  vessels  armed  for  their  legiti- 
mate defense  may  not  seize  any  enemy  merchant  ship,  unless  con- 
strained thereto  through  provocation. 

Article  3.  National  war  vessels  are  forbidden  to  seize  any  private 
merchant  ship  belonging  to  the  enemy  nation,  unless  such  ship  be 
armed  for  war  purposes.  The  National  Assembly  reserves  unto  itself 
to  decide  at  an  early  moment  upon  the  exceptions  which  might  have 
to  be  made  in  applying  this  law  to  the  diflferent  circumstances  of  the 
war. 

Article  4.  Upon  their  arrival  in  the  ports,  the  crews  of  the  corsairs 
taken  by  national  war  vessels  shall  be  interrogated  upon  the  demand 
of  the  public  accuser  and  before  the  tribunal  of  the  locality  whither 
the  said  corsairs  are  conducted.  If  Frenchmen  are  found  among  the 
crew,  their  penalty  shall  be  death ;  and  the  subjects  of  the  enemy  nation 
shall  be  confined  in  prison  for  the  duration  of  the  war ;  and  as  to  the 
penalty  to  be  inflicted  upon  corsairs  not  belonging  to  belligerent  na- 
tions, action  shall  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the  conventions  that 
may  be  entered  into  between  France  and  the  Powers  to  which  they 
belong ;  in  the  meantime  they  shall  be  detained  in  prison. 

Article  5.  Losses  likely  to  be  sustained  by  individuals  through  the 
act  of  corsairs  under  enemy  flag  shall  be  ascertained  and  attested  by 
the  commercial  courts  before  which  the  parties  are  authorized  to  bring 


DE  BOECK  37 

action  by  all  lawful  means  at  their  disposal ;  and  the  amount  of  the 
losses  sustained  shall  form  the  object  of  a  claim  of  indemnification, 
which  shall  be  the  preliminary  to  any  adjustment  or  negotiation  for 
peace. 

Article  6.  The  National  Assembly  invites  the  king  to  approach  the 
nations  through  the  medium  of  his  ambassadors,  for  the  absolute  sup- 
pression of  piracy  in  maritime  warfare,  and  to  ensure,  in  so  far  as 
dependent  on  the  French  nation,  the  freedom  of  navigation  and  of 
commerce,  which  is  a  mutual  usufruct  of  the  peoples  and  their  com- 
mon ownership.^ 

§  66. — A  substitute  project  which  met  with  the  approval  of  the 
National  Assembly  confined  itself  to  a  proposal  to  be  sent  to  the  other 
nations  for  the  abolition  of  piracy. 

Mr.  Emmery  expressed  himself  as  follows :  "I  come  from  a  city 
which  has  fitted  out  the  most  of  the  privateering  vessels ;  I  assure  you 
that  the  thousand  or  twelve  hundred  corsairs  which  it  has  armed  in  the 
course  of  the  last  war  have  inflicted  more  injury  upon  England  than 
the  combined  royal  navies  of  the  two  Bourbon  houses.  And  still  this 
cit}'  does  not  wish  to  continue  to  fit  out  such  ships.  I  propose,  there- 
fore, that  we  request  the  king  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  dif- 
ferent Courts  with  a  view  to  abolishing  privateering,  and  to  adjourn  the 
projects  that  have  been  laid  before  you." 

Vergniaux,  who  was  a  very  influential  member  of  the  National 
Assembly,  supported  this  motion,  and  proposed  to  draft  the  decree 
as  follows : 

"The  National  Assembly  decrees  that  the  executive  be  invited  to 
negotiate  with  the  foreign  Powers  in  order  that  in  the  maritime  wars 
that  may  arise  in  future,  vessels  fitted  out  for  privateering  shall  be  sup- 
pressed, and  the  free  navigation  of  commerce  ensured ;  it  adjourns 
the  other  articles  of  the  project  of  the  decree  presented  by  its  com- 
mittee." 

The  speech  and  the  proposition  of  Vergniaux  were  approved  by  ac- 
claim. Mr.  Kersaint  tried,  but  in  vain,  to  answer :  the  Assembly  closed 
the  discussion  and  granted  priority  of  consideration  to  the  project  of 
Vergniaux  which  was  adopted  almost  unanimously   (May  30,  1792). 

§  68. — In  execution  of  the  decree  of  May  30.  1792,  Mr.  de  Cham- 
bonas,  the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Aflfairs,  sent  on  June  19,  1792, 


'^Monitcur,  May  31,   1792,  p.  632 ;  the  report  of  the  discussion  has  been  re- 
printed in  Pistoj'e  et  Duverdy,  vol.  1,  pp.  7-14. 


38  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

a  circular  letter  to  the  French  diplomatic  agents  directing  them  to  open 
negotiations  with  regard  to  this  decree :  in  this  circular  letter,  privateer- 
ing was  qualified  as  "of  barbarian  usage  whose  most  certain  effect  it  is 
to  impoverish  the  State  by  ruining  the  wealth  of  the  citizens,  and  to  add 
a  number  of  private  calamities  to  the  public  misfortunes."^ 

The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, answered  on  October  16,  1792,  the  communication  that  had  been 
laid  before  him  by  Mr.  de  Ternant.  the  French  Minister:  the  United 
States  is  ready  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  France.  "Our  senti- 
ments,'' said  Mr.  Jefferson,  "have  been  declared  in  the  treaty  which 
you  mentioned  (treaty  of  1785  with  Prussia),  as  well  as  in  other 
political  conventions  that  have  not  yet  been  confirmed.  In  these 
treaties  there  are  even  other  principles  zvhich  your  Government  would 
probably  approve  of  as  well  as  tending  to  decrease  the  occasions  and 
the  calamities  of  zvarJ"^ 

The  French  mission  to  London  handed,  on  July  25,  1792.^  a  note 
to  Lord  Grenville.  Secretary  of  State  of  Great  Britain ;  this  note  was 
left  unanswered. 

The  propositions  to  open  negotiations  and  sent  to  the  other  Powers 
met  with  a  similar  fate. 

Hamburg  and  the  Hanseatic  Cities  alone  accepted  the  French  propo- 
sition unreservedly,  and  this  act  led  to  the  issuance  of  a  decree  by  the 
National  Convention,  March  29,  1793,  abolishing  privateering  in  regard 
to  the  said  cities.* 

§  dp. — Six  months  had  scarcely  passed  by  since  the  issuance  of  the 
decree  of  May  30,  1792,  when  on  January  7,  1793,  a  rescript  of  the 
executive  council  warned  ship-owners  that  "the  maritime  Powers  of 
first  rank  not  having  answered  the  invitations  extended  to  them  for 
the  purpose  of  suppressing  privateering  on  the  seas,  such  privateering 
was  thus  not  forbidden  by  any  law,  and  any  Frenchman  need  only  take 
counsel  of  his  patriotism,  in  case  of  a  conflict  with  one  or  several  of 
those  Powers."^ 

"Soon  thereafter,"  declares  Cauchy,  "on  the  occasion  of  the  break- 
ing of  relations  with  England,  notice  for  the  arming  of  privateers  was 


1  Cauchy,  op.  cit..  Annex  No.  2,  pp.  87-88. 

^Ibid.,  Annex  No.  .^,  p.  89;  we  do  not  know  to  what  other  treaties  Mr.  Jefifer- 
son  refers. 

^Ihid.,  Annex  No.  4,  pp.  90-92. 

^Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  67. 

"''Cauchy,  Droit  maritime  international,  vol.  2,  p.  317. 


DE  BOECK  39 

given.  They  were  supplied  with  all  things  that  can  encourage  semi- 
mercantile  and  semi-warlike  speculations."  The  national  warehouses 
were  opened  to  them  (law  of  23  thermidor.  year  III)  ;  to  the  captors 
was  left  the  total  product  of  their  seizure  (Article  25,  law  of  February 
1,  1792).  Along  with  the  admiralties,  the  prize  tribunals  were  abol- 
ished: the  decision  in  regard  to  prizes  was  referred  to  the  courts  of 
commerce  and  to  the  district  tribunals  (law  of  August  13,  1791  ;  law 
of  February  14,  1793).^  More  even  than  that,  French  consuls  were 
clothed  with  such  jurisdiction  in  neutral  ports.-  Praises  were  sung 
to  privateering  which  had  formerly  been  vilified :  in  official  reports  it 
was  declared  that  privateering  "the  sort  of  war  which  develops  courage 
and  forms  heroes"  was,  more  than  conflict  between  fleets,  in  conformity 
with  "the  policy  of  France" ;  privateering  was  to  "revivify  activity  in 
the  ports,  and  set  immense  amounts  of  money  in  circulation'' ;  finally,  it 
was  to  protect  "the  commerce  of  France  and  to  annihilate"  that  of 
England  (report  of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  23  thermidor, 
year  III).^ 

§  70. — By  conferring  prize  jurisdiction  upon  the  ordinary  courts, 
the  rights  of  neutrals  were  compromised.  But  these  rights  were  sub- 
sequently attacked  even  more  vigorously  in  the  duel  between  France 
and  England. 

In  the  first  place,  the  National  Convention  confirmed  laws  previously 
enacted  with  regard  to  maritime  prizes,  and  therefore,  the  regulation 
of  1778  as  well ;  to  the  French  corsairs  it  issued  instructions  enjoining 
them  to  respect  the  neutral  flag.*  With  Prussia,  Austria,  Spain  and 
Russia  which  were  her  allies,  England  from  the  beginning  concluded 
conventions  by  the  terms  of  which  the  said  Powers  were  to  prohibit 
to  France  the  exportation  of  wheat  and  any  other  food  stuflFs ;  further- 
more, they  obligated  themselves,  in  order  the  more  certainly  to  attain 
the  object  in  view — to  starve  France — to  do  their  utmost  with  regard 
to  the  neutral  Powers  in  order  to  induce  them  to  adopt  similar  meas- 
ures.   France  answered  with  the  decree  of  May  9,  1793,  which  ordered 


iThe  public  treasury  was  even  charged  with  the  expenses  to  which  ship-owners 
should  be  condemned  for  illegal  prizes.  Caucby,  Du  respect  de  la  propriete 
privec,  p.  40. 

^According  to  Biisch,  cited  by  Katchenovsky,  p.  78,  note  k,  it  would  seem 
that  French  consuls  frequently  were  part  owners  in  the  vessels  armed  for  piracy, 
a  fact  which  could  hardly  capacitate  them  as  impartial  judges. 

^Cauchy,  Droit  maritime  international,  vol.  2,,  p.  318. 

*Katchenovsky,  p.  74;  Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  5,  pp.  376-400;  vol.  6,  pp. 
752-76.  Cf.  the  Codes  de  prises  published  toward  the  end  of  the  last  century  or 
about  the  beginning  of  the  present  one  by  Lebeau,  Guichard,  Dufriche-Poulaines. 


40  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  seizure  and  conduct  to  French  ports,  of  neutral  vessels  loaded  with 
food  provisions  destined  for  England,  together  vi^ith  any  other  vessel 
carrying  English  merchandise :  provisions  belonging  to  neutrals  shall 
be  subject  only  to  the  right  of  preemption  and  the  value  thereof  shall 
be  paid  to  the  owners ;  enemy  merchandise  shall  be  confiscated ;  apart 
from  this,  neutral  vessels  shall  be  released.^  The  decree  of  June  9, 
1793,  declared  legitimate  prize,  without  even  the  form  of  legal  action, 
any  vessel  belonging  to  any  of  the  Hanseatic  Cities ;  but  as  early  as 
August  16,  the  National  Convention  rescinded  this  action  and  decided 
that  judgment  with  regard  to  such  prizes  would  be  rendered  by  com- 
petent tribunals.  The  treaties  concluded  by  France  with  Sweden,  with 
Denmark  and  with  the  United  States  of  America,  were  respected. 
England  answered  these  reprisals  of  which  she  had  been  the  cause,  by 
new  reprisals:  the  Orders  in  Council  of  June  8  and  November  6,  1793, 
extended  to  all  neutrals  the  right  of  preemption,  and  declared  as  legit- 
imate prize  any  vessel  carrying  products  from  the  French  colonies  or 
food  stuffs  to  the  said  colonies :  in  addition  to  this,  secret  instructions 
were  issued  to  the  English  corsairs.^ 

§  77. — Danish  commerce  in  particular  suffered  heavy  losses.  In 
the  twinkle  of  an  eye,  so  to  say,  it  was  almost  annihilated.  As  early 
as  August  19,  1793,  189  Danish  vessels  had  been  seized;  indemnities 
that  were  to  follow  this  exercise  of  the  right  of  preemption  were  not 
forthcoming.^  And  in  this  situation,  after  having  refused  to  join 
Great  Britain  and  her  allies  to  starve  France,  Denmark  had  to  pledge 
herself  not  to  convoy  Danish  vessels  en  route  to  France,  compelled, 
according  to  the  expression  of  her  illustrious  Minister,  Bernstorff,  "to 
forsake  the  domain  of  the  universal  and  private  law  of  nations."  De- 
prived of  the  natural  support  of  Russia,  which  she  had  almost  had  a 
right  to  expect,  Denmark  concluded  with  Sweden,  March  27,  1794,  a 
convention  confirming  before  Europe  their  intention  of  remaining  neu- 
tral in  spite  of  the  suggestions  of  the  allies ;  its  object  was  to  protect 
Danish  and  Swedish  commerce.  A  combined  fleet  of  the  two  coun- 
tries was  to  be  stationed  in  the  Sound.* 

§  7^. — Seeing  its  commerce  and  agriculture  threatened  by  this  Eng- 


^Guichard,  Code  dcs  prises  maritimes  et  des  armements  en  course,  vol.  2,  pp. 
v-1,  a  dissertation  upon  prize  legislation. 

-Katchenovsky,  p.  75. 

^Ibid.;  Lucchesi-Palli,  Principes  de  droit  public  maritime,  translated  by  A.  de 
Galiani,  Paris,  1842,  p.  95. 

*Post.  p.  440. 


DE  BOECK  41 

lish  policy,  the  United  States  of  America,  on  September  7,  1793,  had 
complained  to  England.  The  Order  in  Council  of  June  8,  1793,  had 
been  revoked,  and  the  treaty  of  1794  concluded,  when  in  April,  1794, 
a  new  Order  in  Council  subjected  all  vessels  loaded  with  provisions 
for  France  to  the  right  of  preemption.  This  Order  in  Council  gave 
subsequent  rise  to  the  appointment  of  a  mixed  commission.^  But  the 
conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  1794  had  caused  great  irritation  in  France. 
As  early  as  1793,  France  had  treated  American  vessels  the  same  as 
England  had.  This  had  been  decided  in  a  general  way  with  regard 
to  all  neutral  Powers,  by  the  decree  of  the  14  messidor,  year  IV:  it 
informs  all  neutral  or  allied  Powers  "that  neutral  vessels,  either  with 
regard  to  confiscation  or  visit  and  prehension,"  will  be  treated  in  the 
same  "manner  as  they  will  permit  England  to  treat  them."  The  same 
decree  ordered  "the  search  of  American  vessels  which,  according  to 
the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  England,  might  require 
measures  of  reciprocity" ;  this  measure  is  extended  to  include  all 
neutral  vessels  "upon  which  England  had  arrogated  unto  herself  rights 
of  search  and  of  prehension.''  Furthermore,  the  decree  of  the  12 
nivose,  year  IV  (May  2,  1796),  based  upon  the  treaty  between  England 
and  the  United  States,  declared  that :  ( 1 )  All  enemy  merchandise  or 
such  other  merchandise  as  has  not  been  shown  to  be  absolutely  neutral, 
and  carried  under  the  American  flag,  shall  be  confiscated,  but  the  ves- 
sel shall  be  sold.  (2)  To  the  articles  of  war  contraband  indicated 
under  Article  24  of  the  treaty  between  France  and  the  United  States 
of  February  6,  1778,  four  new  articles  of  merchandise  and  naval  muni- 
tions are  added. ^  (3)  Any  American  bearing  a  commission  conferred 
by  the  enemies  of  France,  and  any  sailor  of  this  nation  included  in  the 
crew  of  enemy  vessels  is  considered  a  pirate  or  subject  to  being 
treated  as  such.  (4)  Any  American  vessel  not  keeping  its  crew  list 
in  due  form  is  regarded  as  legitimate  prize. ^  By  the  Morfontaine 
treaty  of  1800,  France  and  the  United  States  were  first  reconciled  on 
the  basis  of  the  true  principles:  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1778 
were  renewed,  especially  the  one  sanctioning  the  inviolability  of  the 
neutral  flag.* 


^Wheaton,  op.  cit.,  vol.  2,  pp.  40-47. 

2This  was  done  in  order  to  uniformize  the  treaty  with  Article  18  of  the 
treaty  of  1794  between  England  and  the  United  States. 

•''This  document  referred  to  already  was  included  in  Guichard's  Code  des 
prises;  he  has  gathered  them  together  in  his  dissertation  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made. 

♦Martens,  Recueil,  2d.  ed.,  vol.  7,  pp.  96  et  seq.  The  Morfontaine  treaty  was 
signed  at  Paris,  September  30,  1800. 


42  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

§  j^. — Before  this  time,  the  rigors  of  English  and  French  policy  in- 
creased from  year  to  year.  In  1794,  Sir  James  Marriot  proposed  the 
rule  of  which  he  was  the  inventor,  that  neutral  nations  were  merely 
entitled  to  transport  their  products,  and  not  those  of  other  countries.^ 
The  law  of  the  29  nivose,  year  VI,  declared  that  "the  status  of  the 
vessels,  in  so  far  as  their  quality  as  neutral  or  enemy  vessels  is  con- 
cerned, shall  be  determined  by  their  cargo ;  therefore,  any  vessel  met 
with  on  the  high  seas,  loaded  in  full  or  in  part  with  merchandise  com- 
ing from  England  or  from  her  possessions,  shall  be  declared  legitimate 
prize,  no  matter  who  might  be  the  owner  of  such  provisions  or  mer- 
chandise."- If  with  this  law,  we  compare,  according  to  the  observa- 
tion of  Guichard,  the  law  of  the  10  brumaire,  year  V,  which  classes 
as  coming  from  English  factories,  no  matter  what  their  origin,  all 
merchandise  and  materials  included  in  a  very  long  list  inserted  into 
that  law,  "there  will  hardly  be  left  any  articles  of  merchandise  of  the 
most  common  kind  and  most  necessary  to  the  ever^'day  needs  of  civil- 
ized societies,  and  which,  imported  from  abroad,  might  not  be  in- 
cluded in  this  sort  of  general  proscription,  no  matter  on  what  vessel 
it  might  be  loaded."^ 

§  74. — These  harsh  measures,  it  seems,  did  not  satisfy  the  avidity  of 
the  corsairs.  It  will  be  remembered  that  under  the  Directory,  the 
Council  of  Five  Hundred  had  to  interpret  the  laws  in  reference  to 
prize  matters  and  in  all  other  matters :  to  this  end  it  issued  orders  of 
the  day.  "I  have  known,"  says  Berryer,  Sr.,  in  his  Souvenirs,  "that 
corsairs  knew  how  to  secure  in  the  early  hours  of  the  morning,  from 
the  Council  of  Five  Hundred,  even  before  all  the  members  had  as- 
sembled, orders  of  the  day  interpretative  of  the  law  discussed  with 
them.  These  secret  orders  of  the  day  were  straightway  taken  to  the 
attorney  general  who  availed  himself  thereof  to  issue  decisions  against 
the  neutrals.  One  day  I  was  the  personal  witness  of  such  a  secret 
order  of  the  day  being  presented  by  a  man  who  I  had  reason  to 
believe  was  a  deputy  from  Southern  France.  He  secured  the  im- 
mediate attention  of  the  commissary  of  the  Government  who  was 
about  to  address  the  audience,  and  leaning  on  the  railing  of  the  en- 
closure where  the  commissary  was  seated,  and  having  handed  him  a 
paper,   he   whispered  to   him.   his  two   hands  being  placed  upon   the 


'Katchenovskv,  p.  77,  note  i. 

-Guichard,  vol.  2,  p.  xli. 

^Ibid.,  p.  xlii.     Law  of  the  10  brumaire,  year  V,  Article  5,  vol.  2,  p.  351. 


DE  BOECK  43 

documents  of  the  case  being  heard,  and  displaying  two  large  diamonds 
which  he  wore  one  each  on  his  little  fingers.  Aroused  by  his  strange 
appearance,  I  rushed  to  where  the  commissary  was  seated  and  there, 
not  being  able  to  restrain  myself  because  of  the  perfidious  act  of  which 
my  client  was  going  to  be  the  victim,  and  even  before  I  had  asked  the 
messenger  what  this  interpretation  portended,  I  exclaimed  loud  enough 
to  be  heard:  Solitaire  rhymes  with  corsair.  Without  waiting  for  any 
further  explanation,  the  deputy  messenger  left  the  room  precipitately, 
and  I  then  learned  that  this  man  had  laid  before  the  commissary  an 
order  of  the  day  which  settled  my  case."^ 

§  y6.  The  regularization  of  privateering — using  the  expression  of  the 
Directory — could  not  be  efi^ected  so  long  as  the  disorder  and  confusion 
surrounding  the  prize  decisions  had  not  come  to  an  end ;  for  after 
having  been,  for  some  time,  within  the  sphere  of  the  powers  of  the 
committee  of  public  safety,  jurisdiction  over  prizes  had,  as  has  already 
been  stated,  been  transferred  to  the  ordinary  courts ;  and  the  com- 
missaries sitting  in  these  courts  were  authorized  to  appeal  to  the  Gov- 
ernment in  those  affairs  which  might  require  the  interpretation  of 
treaties  and  in  which  the  decision  of  the  courts  might  compromise  the 
rights  of  some  friendly  or  neutral  Government.  But  the  courts  were 
not  pleased  with  this  measure  and  evidenced  hostility  in  regard  to  it, 
some  of  them,  in  spite  of  all,  deciding  cases  in  which  the  commissaries 
had  appealed  to  the  Directory,  while  others  asserted  that  it  was  in- 
cumbent upon  them  and  not  upon  the  commissaries  of  the  Government 
to  decide  whether  or  not  it  was  necessary  to  refer  the  case.-  This 
matter  had  to  be  settled  once  and  for  all :  the  decree  of  the  consuls  of 
the  6  germinal,  year  VIII.  settled  it  by  the  creation  of  the  prize  council. 

§  77. — In  the  meanwhile,  and  as  a  result  of  famous  discussions  be- 
tween England  and  Sweden  and  especially  Denmark,  in  regard  to  the 
search  of  convoyed  vessels,  the  second  armed  neutrality  was  concluded. 
On  December  4/16.  Russia  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  with  Sweden  and 
with  Denmark  two  identic  conventions  of  armed  maritime  neutrality. 
Two  days  later.  December  6/18,  there  was  concluded  between  Russia 
and  Prussia  a  third  convention  of  armed  maritime  neutrality.  Through 
their  Article  3.  these  treaties  sanctioned,  enlarging  them  at  the  same 


^This  quotation  from  the  Souvenirs  of  Berryer,  Sr.  (vol.  2,  p.  42)  is  taken 
from  Pistoye  et  Duverdy,  vol.  1,  pp.  360-361. 

^Pistoye  "et  Duverdy,"  vol.  2,  p.  158.  Cf.  pp.  149-158,  regarding  the  prize 
decisions  from  1793  to  the  year  VIII. 


44  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

time,  the  principles  proclaimed  in  1780.^  This  article  completed  the 
theory  about  blockades,  and  completed  it  in  such  manner  that  it  may 
be  accepted  even  to-day  in  the  manner  in  which  it  was  settled  by  the 
second  armed  neutrality.  It  settled  the  question  of  convoyed  vessels 
so  that  they  were  exempt  from  the  right  of  search  upon  the  declara- 
tion of  the  officer  in  command  of  the  convoy.  The  conventions  of 
1800,  even  as  the  acts  of  1780,  are  silent  upon  the  question  of  neutral 
property  on  board  enemy  vessels :  the  matter  is  of  only  secondary 
economic  importance  as  compared  with  that  of  the  inviolability  of  the 
neutral  flag;  this  is  the  reason  no  doubt  why  it  did  not  challenge 
greater  attention  at  the  time  or  left  its  solution  to  the  pleasure  of  the 
belligerents. 

England  answered  to  the  second  armed  neutrality  with  her  Order 
in  Council  of  January  14,  1801,  placing  an  embargo  upon  Russian, 
Danish  and  Swedish  vessels,-  and  by  the  bombardment  of  Copen- 
hagen  (April  2,  1801). 

This  last-inentioned  event  and  the  murder  of  Emperor  Paul  I 
brought  about  the  dissolution  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1800. 

§  jS. — Between  Alexander  I  and  Great  Britain  there  was  concluded 
on  June  5/17,  1801,  the  maritime  convention  of  St.  Petersburg.  Arti- 
cle 3  and  Article  4  of  this  convention  include  all  the  questions  of 
neutrality.  A  single  one  of  the  propositions  interests  us :  it  is  the  one 
reading  as  follows :  "The  effects  embarked  on  board  neutral  ships 
shall  be  free,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  and  of  enemy's 
property ;  and  it  is  agreed  not  to  comprise  under  the  denomination  of 
the  latter,  the  merchandise  of  the  produce,  growth,  or  manufacture 
of  the  countries  at  war,  which  should  have  been  acquired  by  the  sub- 
jects of  the  neutral  Power,  and  should  be  transported  for  their  ac- 
count, which  merchandise  can  not  be  excepted  in  any  case  from  the 
freedom  granted  to  the  flag  of  the  said  Power."^  This  is  a  most  re- 
markable clause. 

Denmark  and  Sweden  were  to  be  invited  by  the  Emperor  of  Russia, 
in  the  name  of  the  two  contracting  Parties  to  accede  to  this  treaty. 
Mr.  von  Bernstorff  went  in  person  to  London  in  order  to  try  and 
secure   modifications  to  the   treaty  ;*   his  efforts  proved   fruitless  and 


^Convention  between  Russia  and  Sweden,  post,  p.  531;  convention  between 
Russia  and  Denmark,  post,  p.  537;  convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia, 
post,  p.  544. 

2Wheaton,  op.  cit.,  vol.  2,  p.  85 ;  post,  p.  558. 

spost,  p.  595. 

<Lucchesi-Palli,  pp.  151-152. 


DE  BOECK  45 

the  Copenhagen  Court  had  to  subscribe  to  the  St.  Petersburg  maritime 
convention  on  October  23,  1801.  Sweden  acceded  to  it  on  March 
18/30,  1802.  Prussia  never  subscribed  to  it.  The  St.  Petersburg 
convention  seemed  to  dissatisfy  everyone.  In  the  English  Parliament, 
Lord  Grenville,  who  had  just  resigned  from  the  Ministry,  attacked 
this  convention  vigorously ;  he  accused  the  Ministers  of  having  be- 
trayed the  interests  of  Great  Britain  and  of  having  cleared  the  arsenal 
of  the  English  maritime  law.  The  Ministry  set  forth  the  difference 
between  the  convention  of  1801  and  the  conventions  of  1780,  notwith- 
standing the  similarity  in  the  words  pointed  to  by  Lord  Grenville ; 
the  Ministry  alleged  in  particular  that  the  English  theory  of  blockades 
had  in  no  wise  been  undermined.  Lord  Grenville  maintained  that  the 
substitution  of  the  word  or  in  the  place  of  a)id  (vessels  stationed  or 
sufficiently  close  to  each  other)  was  of  the  utmost  importance,  but  he 
declared  that  a  mistake  had  been  made  in  not  laying  greater  stress  upon 
such  an  important  point.^  The  convention  of  1801  was,  furthermore, 
never  rigorously  enforced.    Russia  solemnly  renounced  it  in  1807. 

§  7p. — The  convention  of  1801  has  some  times  been  made  to  appear 
as  an  equitable  transaction.  The  conventions  of  1780  and  1800  pro- 
claimed four  great  principles ;  the  convention  of  1801  recognized  but 
two.^  It  seems  to  us  that  this  is  a  superficial  and  incorrect  way  of 
looking  at  things.  Along  with  the  conventions  of  1780  and  of  1800,  the 
convention  of  1801  accorded  to  the  neutrals  free  access  to  enemy 
ports;  along  with  the  conventions  of  1780  and  of  1800,  it  defined  war 
contraband  in  an  exact  and  reasonable  manner,  perhaps  with  the  ex- 
ception of  that  part  of  it  which  refers  to  sulphur  and  saltpeter.  But 
( 1 )  it  admitted  that  the  blockade  need  not  be  effective  in  order  to  bind 
the  neutrals ;  it  implicitly  rejected  the  necessity  of  a  special  notifica- 
tion; (2)  it  subjected  convoyed  vessels  to  the  right  of  search  (on  the 
part  only  of  w^ar-ships,  it  is  true,  and  not  of  corsairs)  ;  (3)  officially  it 
authorized  the  seizure  of  enemy  merchandise  under  the  neutral  flag. 
These  are  the  three  main  differences  between  the  acts  of  1780  and 
1800,  and  the  convention  of  1801 :  the  former  safeguarded  neutral 
rights,  the  latter  placed  them  in  jeopardy. 

§  8o. — Thus,  not  only  had  the  movement  inaugurated  in  1780  been 


^Speech  of  Lord  Grenville,  November  12,  1801.  See  especially  Wheaton, 
op.  cit.,  vol.  2,  pp.  94-105. 

2Thiers,  Hisfoire  du  Consulaf  et  dc  I' Empire,  vol.  3,  p.  116.  Cf.  the  excellent 
thoughts  upon  this  matter  by  Cauchy,  Droit  maritime  international,  vol.  2,  pp. 
344-349. 


46  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Stopped  by  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution,  but  even  a  serious 
attempt  and  for  which  the  hour  had  seemingly  been  well  chosen,  for 
affirming  and  effectively  sanctioning  neutral  rights  which  were  threat- 
ened by  the  encroachments  of  the  belligerents,  had  been  completely 
wrecked.  The  peace  of  Luneville  had  not  renewed  the  treaties  of 
Utrecht.  The  peace  of  Amiens,  in  1802,  was  equally  silent  upon  this 
matter ;  France  had  proposed  to  regulate  at  least  some  matters  rela- 
tive to  international  maritime  law ;  England  peremptorily  refused  to 
follow  the  example.  Lord  Hawkesbury  wrote  to  the  English  plenipo- 
tentiary at  Amiens :  "His  majesty  will  never  by  a  peace  treaty  sur- 
render the  means  that  may  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  safety  of  his 
States  in  time  of  war."^  The  fate  of  the  neutrals  and  the  delimita- 
tion of  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare  were  placed  in  the  care  of  the 
prize  courts  of  the  belligerents. 


BOYE:  De  Vcubnede  Neutralitetsforhimd  ct  Avsnit  av  Folkerettens 
Historic.    Christiania,  1912. 

Thorvald  Boye.  Contemporary  Norwegian  publicist ;  born  in  1871.  With  the 
aid  of  a  scholarship  from  Christiania  University  Boye  went  to  London  in  1905 
to  pursue  studies  in  international  law,  and  while  there,  as  a  student  of  the 
London  School  of  Economics  and  Political  Science,  gained  access  to  the 
English  Public  Record  Office  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  correspondence 
of  the  admiralty  and  foreign  afifairs  from  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
In  1906  and  1907  he  continued  his  studies  at  Copenhagen  and  in  1909  at  Stock- 
holm. As  a  result  of  these  studies  he  wrote  De  Vccbncdc  Ncutralitctsforbund 
which  was  published,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Norwegian  Nobel  Institute  and 
the  Finnish  Legation,  at  Christiania,  Copenhagen  and  Stockholm. 


§  45,  page  142. — Since  1773  Count  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff  had 
been  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  Copenhagen.-  He  had  in  all  es- 
sentials understood  the  policy  of  his  uncle  J.  H.  E.  Bernstorff :  to  work 


^See  especially  Johnstone,  Handbook  of  Maritime  Rights,  ch.  8,  p.  79. 

^Andreas  Peter,  Count  of  Bernstorff,  was  born  August  28,  1735,  on  his  father's 
estate  of  Gartow,  near  Liinehurg  in  Germany.  He  was  the  nephew  of  the  older 
Count  J.  H.  E.  Bernstorff,  at  whose  suggestion  he  entered  the  service  of  Den- 
mark.    He  died  on  June  21,   1797. 


BOYE  47 

for  the  preservation  of  peace  and  neutrality.^  On  account  of  the 
important  Danish-Norwegian  commercial  and  maritime  interests,  he 
was  careful  to  see  to  it  that  his  Government  was  on  good  footing  with 
England. 

Acceding  to  a  request  from  England,  the  Danish-Norwegian  Gov- 
ernment had  already,  on  October  4,  1775,  issued  a  royal  ordinance 
which,  under  penalty,  forbade  the  ships  that  flew  His  Majesty's  flag 
to  transport  ammunition  or  war  armaments  to  the  provinces  in  North 
America,  which  were  at  war  with  England. 

Because  hostilities  with  France  had  broken  out  and  some  Danish- 
Norwegian  ships  had  been  captured  by  English  cruisers,  BernstorflF 
gave  instructions  to  Dreyer,^  the  Danish-Norwegian  Ambassador  in 
London,  to  give  his  assistance  to  the  captured  ships  and  to  have  proper 
representations  made  to  the  English  Government.  He  continued  his 
correspondence  with  the  Ambassador  till  the  summer  of  1778,  urging 
him  to  cooperate  with  the  Swedish  and  Dutch  Ministers  in  London  to 
secure  better  terms  for  neutral  navigation  because  the  interests  of  the 
country  demanded  it. 

Moreover,  Count  Ulrik  Scheff^er,  the  President  of  the  Swedish  Coun- 
cil, who  was  then  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  had  opened  negotiations 
in  London  to  secure  better  treatment  for  Swedish  commerce  and  navi- 
gation. Even  before  the  maritime  war  with  France  had  begun,  the 
President  of  the  Council,  in  May  or  in  June  of  1778,  had  sent  a  sug- 
gestion to  Nolcken,  the  Swedish  Minister  at  London,  to  do  his  best 
to  see  that  Englishmen  should  not  seize  Swedish  merchant  ships  carry- 
ing freight  to  enemy  country,  and  that  Swedish  ships  might  at  least 
enjoy  the  same  rights  with  regard  to  England  as  Englishmen  wished  to 
have  with  regard  to  Sweden  in  case  Sweden  were  waging  war  and 
England  were  neutral.  The  Swedish  regulation  for  war-ships  and 
munition  transports  of  July  28,  1741,^  even  as  the  English,  had  not 
permitted  neutral  ships  to  transport  enemy  merchandise,  but  it  had 
permitted  neutral  ships  unhindered  navigation  to  and  from  enemy 
country  with  any  merchandise,  excepting  war  contraband.  According 
to  the  practice  which  the  English  prize  laws  had  previously  followed, 
this  would  meanwhile  totally  ruin  Swedish  trade  with  France.    Scheffer 


^See  Aage  Friis,  Andreas  Peter  Bernstorff  og  Ove  Hoegh  Guldbcrg,  pp.  48, 
170  et  seq. 

-Appointed,  August  28,  1778,  Envoy  Extraordinary  to  London,  after  he  had 
been  Minister  Resident  since  May,  1777. 

^See  Boye,  p.  83,  note  1. 


48  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Stated  that  it  would  be  more  advantageous  for  both  parties  to  enter 
into  an  agreement  for  the  recognition  of  the  principle :  free  ship,  free 
merchandise.  Such  an  agreement  would  be  especially  useful  to  Eng- 
land because  of  her  considerable  trade  and  navigation  in  the  Baltic  Sea. 
Again,  the  Swedish  Government  wished  for  a  more  precise  definition 
of  the  term  "war  contraband"  than  appeared  in  the  treaty  with  England 
of  October  21,  1661.  The  English  had  indeed  classed  timber,  iron, 
pitch,  tar  and  other  material  for  ship-building,  as  war  contraband, 
whilst  they  should  be  included  as  per  Article  11  of  the  treaty  under 
commeatus  (that  is  to  say,  free  supplies). 

The  Swedish  Government  declared  that  the  said  articles  could  not 
be  classed  as  contraband.  If  raw  material  of  which  contraband  is 
manufactured  should  be  classed  as  such,  then  wool,  flax,  hemp,  and 
even  all  of  nature's  products  might  likewise  be  included  among  contra- 
band. But  such  a  principle  was  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  all  nations 
in  regard  to  the  trade  with  and  navigation  to  open  ports. 

Through  the  Danish-Norwegian  Ambassador  in  London,  Bernstorff 
was  informed  of  the  representations  which  the  Swedish  Ambassador 
had  made  to  the  English  Government.  Since  Sweden  took  essentially 
the  same  position  toward  England  as  Denmark- Norway,  this  proved 
of  interest  to  Bernstorfl^  and  he  sought  to  secure  more  detailed  in- 
telligence as  to  how  the  Swedish  Government  would  act  in  future. 
He  did  this  with  cleverness  and  decision ;  and  it  was  desirable  that  the 
Swedish  Minister  in  London  should  be  given  the  same  instructions  as 
the  Danish-Norwegian.  In  a  memorial  of  August  25,  1778,  Bernstorff 
therefore  gave  to  Guldencrone,  his  Ambassador  at  Stockholm,  orders 
to  investigate  how  the  Swedish  Government  would  consider  the  eventual 
question  of  a  "concert"  toward  England.  Bernstorff  declared  in  his 
memorial  :^ 

The  war  between  England  and  France  puts  every  neutral  flag 
into  very  great  danger.  Such  flag  should  not  be  exposed  thereto 
except  as  it  might  protect  transportation  of  war  munitions  to  the 
countries  actually  in  conflict :  any  other  merchandise  in  destination 
for  ports  not  blockaded  should  be  respected.  France  will  surely 
act  in  conformity  with  these  principles,  but  has  pledged  herself 
thereto  for  only  six  months  unless  England  likewise  observes  them. 
Very  reluctantly  I  fear  that  England  will  not  do  so :  experiences  of 
the  past  do  not  reassure  me  and  recent  acts  make  me  fear  for  the 


^Taken  from  the  archives  of  the  Danish  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


BOYE  49 

future.  Holland,  Sweden  and  Denmark  are  evidently  the  parties 
most  interested.  They  would  lose  the  real  benefit  of  their  neutrality 
if  they  should  not  be  able  to  make  it  respected.  They  may  possibly 
do  this  through  a  concert  established  with  wisdom  and  sustained 
with  firmness,  but  I  can  not  help  seeing  the  difficulties  of  doing  so, 
and  these  difficulties  are  sufficiently  great  not  to  permit  me  to 
commission  you  to  proffer  ministerial  overtures  in  regard  thereto. 
I  must  confine  myself.  Sir,  to  requesting  you  to  get  the  Swedish 
Minister  to  speak  upon  this  matter  and  if  possible  to  get  an  in- 
sight into  his  own  sentiments  and  into  those  of  his  master.  You 
may  agree  that  this  aim  is  much  in  our  thought,  that  we  will  put 
all  our  resolution  to  it  as  circumstances  may  make  necessary,  and 
that  the  Ministers  of  the  King  in  France  and  in  England  have 
already  been  instructed  to  show  themselves  favorable  to  any  such 
concert  as  the  Ministers  of  Holland  and  of  Sweden  might  propose 
and  wish  for  in  the  occurrences  in  which  the  same  interests  and 
the  same  principles  are  to  be  protected.  I  do  not  foresee  that  the 
predilection  of  France  for  Sweden  will  exercise  much  influence 
in  the  present  case.  Exceptions  can  not  be  avoided,  and  for  this 
reason  I  believe  that  Sweden  finds  herself  in  exactly  the  same 
embarrassments  as  we  do.  It  is  not  yet  proper  to  proceed  any 
further  and  I  shall  await  your  answer  and  the  sure  hints  which 
time  may  bring  forth  ere  long  when  I  shall  again  communicate 
further  with  you. 

Because  a  large  number  of  merchant  ships,  the  most  of  which  belong- 
ing to  Denmark-Norway,  Sweden  and  Holland,  were  captured  and 
taken  to  English  ports  in  anticipation  of  their  being  disposed  of  accord- 
ing to  the  prize  law,  both  the  Danish-Norwegian  and  the  Swedish  Min- 
ister in  London  protested  to  the  English  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
in  regard  to  the  said  seizures.  They  stated  that  it  was  unjust  to  seize 
merchant  ships  which  had  had  no  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the 
state  of  war.  Since  the  war  had  been  begun  without  a  declaration  of 
war,  it  had  not  been  possible  in  the  proper  time  to  issue  acts  of  notifica- 
tion to  the  merchants  to  that  effect.  The  Dutch  and  the  Prussian 
Ministers  likewise  protested. 

An  answer  was  given  to  all  on  October  19,  1778.  The  Danish- 
Norwegian,  the  Swedish  and  the  Prussian  Ministers  received  uniform 
notes^  containing  explanations  to  the  effect  that  the  captured  neutral 
ships  would  be  released,  although  they  were  loaded  with  merchandise 


^See   C.    A.    Zachrisson,  Sveriges   underhandlingar   ont    bevdpnat    neutralitet, 

1778-80,  p.  3  and  annex  4.  E.  Holm,  Om  Dantnarks  deltagelse  i  forhandlingene 

om  en  vacbnet  neutralitet  fra  1778-1780  in  Dansk  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III  r., 
vol.  5,  p.  5. 


50  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

which  was  prohibited  or  belonged  to  the  enemy.  The  EngHsh  Govern- 
ment would  retain  all  the  "naval  munitions"  (objects  which  were  used 
to  build  or  fit  out  ships)  to  be  paid  for  at  their  full  value,  in  so  far 
as  they  did  not  belong  to  the  enemy.  The  cargo  which  belonged  to  the 
enemy  would  remain  confiscated,  but  the  neutral  ship  would  be  paid 
the  freight  charges.  This  condition  of  things  would  however  not 
extend  beyond  November  10,  1778.  Captures  which  should  be  efifected 
after  that  time,  since  knowledge  of  the  war  must  then  be  supposed  to 
be  abroad,  would  be  taken  for  trial  by  the  English  prize  judge  who 
would  render  his  decision  conformable  to  the  law  of  nations  and  to 
the  principles  set  forth  in  the  treaties. 

The  note  which  was  handed  the  Dutch  Minister  was  somewhat  differ- 
ent from  those  aforementioned.  Through  her  treaties  Holland  was  to 
a  certain  degree  dififerently  situated  with  regard  to  England  than  the 
other  countries.^ 

§  46. — The  English  note  of  October  19,  1778  contained  no  satis- 
factory answer  to  the  complaints  which  the  neutral  Powers  had  pre- 
sented with  regard  to  the  captures  made  by  cruisers. 

Neither  the  Danish-Norwegian  nor  the  Swedish  Ambassador  in 
London  was  satisfied  that  the  English  Government,  although  it  conceded 
that  neutral  ships  could  not  be  informed  of  the  outbreak  of  war  between 
England  and  France,  did  not  set  them  free  with  their  cargoes.  They 
were  not  satisfied  with  the  proffer  of  payment  for  "naval  munitions" 
and  other  merchandise  classed  as  contraband  nor  for  the  freight 
charges  for  the  confiscated  French  cargoes.^ 

Especially  were  they  dissatisfied  with  the  fact  that  the  English 
note  did  not  contain  precise  rules  regarding  the  principles  which  in 
future  should  form  the  basis  for  decisions  of  the  prize  court.  It  did 
not  set  forth  how  England  would  alter  her  former  practice :  with  the 
help  of  her  marine  and  her  numerous  privateers  fully  to  ruin  the  trade 
with  the  enemy  country  and  thereby  to  weaken  its  power  of  resistance. 

Bernstorff  knew  full  well  how  English  cruisers  had  acted  in  previous 
wars,  especially  in  the  Seven  Years'  War,  and  how  they  had  ruined 
neutral  navigation.  During  the  year  1757  he  had  sojourned  in  London,^ 
and  through  numerous  actions  before  the  admiralty  court  he  had 
become  acquainted  with  the  rules  in   regard  to  captures  which  the 


iSee  Holland's  treaties  of  1668,  1674  and  1716  with  England. 

-See  Zachrisson,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  5-6 ;  Holm  in  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  loc.  cit.,  p.  5. 

^See  Eggers,  Denkwilrdigkeitcn  aus  dem  Lcben  des  A.  P.  v.  Bernstorff,  p.  18 


BOYE  51 

English  corsairs  and  war-ships  followed  in  waging  war,  and  which 
made  neutral  navigation  with  that  land  almost  impossible. 

Her  conduct  in  this  respect  was  now  about  the  same  as  it  had  been 
during  the  Seven  Years'  War.  In  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs 
Bernstorff  had  rich  material  in  the  decisions  of  the  practice  with  the 
English  prize  laws,  and  in  the  report  by  Hiibner  he  had  a  good  guide 
to  find  out  in  what  direction  the  English  rules  ought  to  be  changed. 

In  his  letters  to  the  Danish-Norwegian  Ambassador  in  London, 
Bernstorff  repeatedly  set  forth  the  principles  which  the  Ambassador 
should  insist  upon  with  the  English  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 
Among  other  things,  he  wrote  as  follows  in  his  communication  to  him 
of  November  7,  1778:^ 

A  war  does  not  confer  the  slightest  right  to  cause  evil  or  loss  to, 
or  to  injure  in  the  slightest  manner,  any  non-enemy  Powers.  Bel- 
ligerent peoples  without  jurisdiction  with  regard  to  neutral  nations, 
and  without  any  offense  on  their  part,  have  no  power  whatever  in 
time  of  war  any  more  than  in  time  of  peace  to  interfere  with  any 
part  of  their  commerce,  either  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  the 
merchandise  or  relative  to  their  commerce  outlets.  Contraband 
articles  alone  are  an  exception  to  this  principle.  By  this  term  we 
understand  that  which  is  of  direct  and  immediate  use  in  war  and 
which  could  neither  be  sold  nor  supplied  when  transported  to  the 
belligerent  Parties,  without  offending  the  rights  of  neutrality. 
There  must  be  no  incertitude  with  regard  to  this  matter :  neither 
the  English  judges  nor  the  subjects  of  the  neutral  Powers  must 
be  left  in  the  dark  upon  this  (|uestion.  And  in  order  to  remove  it 
forever  from  the  sphere  of  incertitude  we  shall  gladly  and  un- 
restrictedly adopt  that  which  the  peace  of  Utrecht  and  the  treaties 
of  England  with  the  Hollanders — especially  that  of  the  year  1674 — 
determine  in  this  respect,  with  the  sole  condition  of  profiting 
equally  and  conformably  with  the  tenor  of  our  treaty,  by  any  more 
advantageous  concession  which  England  might  grant  to  Holland 
in  this  respect. 

We  shall  furthermore  admit  that  a  neutral  nation  is  not  entitled 
to  enter,  even  with  a  non-prohibited  cargo,  any  vessel  whatever, 
into  a  besieged  and  blockaded  city  or  port ;  it  will  be  necessary  to 
define  the  meaning  of  this  word ;  there  is  but  one  natural  meaning 
to  it,  to  the  effect  that  when  a  considerable  number  of  vessels 
are  established  before  a  port  in  order  to  cut  all  communication 
therewith  from  the  direction  of  the  sea.  then  all  the  approaching 
avenues  are  held  to  be  within  the  power  of  the  attacking  party ;  but 


^Taken    from   the   archives   of   the    Danish    Ministry   of   Foreign    Affairs   for 
1778. 


52  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

this  definition  can  not  be  absolutely  applied  to  a  general  and  in- 
determinate cruising  area  embracing  a  long  extent  of  coasts  and 
of  country,  and  you  will  please  neglect  nothing  to  come  to  an 
agreement  with  the  Ministry  in  regard  to  this  matter  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  I  have  just  set  down. 

There  is  still  another  principle  of  which  I  have  to  inform  you 
and  which  we  insist  upon,  Sir,  and  which  was  formerly  generally 
acknowledged,  but  which,  on  account  of  the  extreme  policy 
observed  in  the  last  wars — a  policy  which  is  characterized  by  a 
dominating  and  oppressive  spirit — (has  rendered)  the  felicities 
of  the  peoples  very  precarious  and  has  seemed  to  be  controvertible : 
it  is  the  principle  that  the  flag  shall  protect  the  merchandise. 

We  can  not  give  up  this  principle.  It  is  inherent  in  the  natural 
law  since  it  belongs  to  the  freedom  of  navigation  of  a  neutral 
Power  and  especially  because  every  one  agrees  that  the  properties 
of  any  nation  at  war  are  safe  when  they  are  within  a  neutral 
territory ;  and  a  neutral  vessel  is  absolutely  the  equivalent  thereof. 
It  has  frequently  been  acknowledged  even  by  England,  notably 
in  the  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  Holland  of  1674,  and 
of  1713  between  her  and  France,  as  well  as  with  Sweden  in  1667, 
and  she  has  even  vigorously  asserted  and  demanded  it  in  sub- 
sequent times  when  Charles  XII,  desiring  to  act  contrary  thereto, 
had  some  English  vessels  seized.  She  likewise  continues  right 
along  in  this  practice  with  regard  to  the  Turks  and  the  Moorish 
Powers,  and  if  it  were  necessary  to  go  further  in  such  searches, 
I  am  sure  that  history  would  furnish  innumerable  examples  thereof. 
Our  thesis  shall  always  be  that  a  Danish  vessel,  declared  as  such 
by  the  passports  and  other  sea  documents  in  due  form,  must  be 
free  from  all  seizure,  although  her  cargo  might  be  directed  to  the 
enemies  of  England  and  for  their  account,  always  excepting  the 
case  that  the  ship  is  carrying  prohibited  merchandise.     .     .     . 

The  visits  on  the  open  seas  were  not  to  extend  beyond  the  ex- 
amination of  the  documents  belonging  to  the  vessel :  the  question 
is  of  assuring  one's  self  that  the  vessel  is  neutral,  that  her  papers 
are  in  due  form,  and  that  her  cargo  does  not  consist  of  war  muni- 
tions ;  this  right  is  just  and.  we  shall  not  dispute  it. 

From  this  we  see  that  A.  P.  Bernstorflf  was  greatly  swayed  by  the 
views  which  had  been  held  by  Hiibner  about  the  neutral's  right  in 
regard  to  his  commerce  and  navigation,  and  that  he  agreed  with 
Hiibner's  proposition  to  change  the  English  principles  as  follows : 

That  enemy  merchandise  with  the  exception  of  war  contraband 
should  be  free  on  neutral  ships ; 

That  war  contraband  should  be  restricted  to  purely  war  necessaries 


BOYE  53 

(in  agreement  with  the  provisions  of  the  Utrecht  treaty)  and  precisely 
defined,  so  that  in  future  all  uncertainty  might  be  removed ; 

That  a  port  should  be  regarded  as  blockaded  when  there  shall  be 
stationed  in  front  of  it  a  sufficient  number  of  war-ships  to  preclude 
any  connection  whatever  with  the  sea ; 

That  neutral  ships  must  be  permitted  to  sail  to  and  from  enemy 
countries ; 

That  visit  should  be  confined  to  an  examination  of  the  ship's  papers. 

§  41,  page  150. — In  the  summer  of  1778,  American  privateers  ap- 
peared in  the  North  Sea  and  seized  English  merchant  ships  on  their 
way  to  Archangel.  When  the  report  from  the  governor  in  Archangel 
reached  St.  Petersburg  stating  that  Russian  merchandise  on  an  English 
ship  had  been  seized  by  American  cruisers,  the  Russian  Empress 
Catherine  II  became  very  angry, ^  because  the  trade  with  Archangel 
had  been  interfered  with.  As  Russia  was  in  close  political  relations 
with  Denmark-Norway  which  was  even  to  a  still  greater  degree  inter- 
ested in  the  matter  of  not  letting  neutral  navigation  and  commerce 
be  disturbed,  it  was  but  natural  for  the  Russian  Government  to  address 
a  communication  to  Copenhagen.  The  English  Ambassador  in  St. 
Petersburg  had  likewise  exerted  himself  for  a  common  action  by  Russia 
and  Denmark-Norway  with  regard  to  the  American  cruisers. 

The  Russian  Chancellor,  Count  Panin,  directed  Sacken,  the  Russian 
Minister  in  Copenhagen,  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  Danish- 
Norwegian  Government  to  discover  how  to  prevent  that  sort  of 
"piracy."  A  Russian  note  of  August  28,  1778-  requested  the  Danish- 
Norwegian  Government  to  enter  into  an  alliance  with  Russia  for  the 
inviolability  of  navigation  in  that  part  of  the  northern  icy  sea  which 
was  open  to  the  two  sovereign  lands,  and  Russia  proposed  that  Russia 
and  Denmark-Norway  should  together  equip  a  fleet  of  the  same  size 
for  the  next  expedition  to  cruise  in  the  northern  waters. 

Meanwhile  the  Danish  and  Norwegian  vessels  were  not  so  much  in 
dread  of  the  American  cruisers  as  they  were  of  the  by  far  more  numer- 
ous English.  Bernstorfif  wished  therefore  to  extend  the  Russian 
proposition  for  an  alliance  between  Russia  and  Denmark-Norway  for 
the  defense  of  neutral  commerce  as  a  connected  whole. 

§  5'^>  poge  160. — When  in  August,   1778,  Bernstorfif  had  set  into 


iSee  letter  written  by  Catherine  II,  August  11,  1778,  to  Grimm,  cited  by  Berg- 
bohm,  Bewaffnete  Neutralitdt  1780-1783,  p.  79. 

2See  Holm  in  Historisk  Tidsskrift.  loc.  cit.,  pp.  14-15. 


54  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

motion  in  Stockholm  negotiations  for  common  action  toward  England.^ 
it  was  not  his  object  to  have  his  country  become  a  party  to  an  armed 
neutraHty.  Such  an  alHance  between  Sweden  and  Denmark-Norway 
would  rouse  great  ill-will  in  England,  and  Bernstorff's  plans  to  secure 
from  the  English  Government  concessions  for  Danish-Norwegian  com- 
merce and  navigation  might  thereby  easily  go  for  naught. - 

Were  the  English  Government  to  get  the  impression  that  Denmark- 
Norway  supported  French  interests  and  took  sides  against  England, 
then  the  Danish-Norwegian  Minister  in  London  would  be  unable  to 
accomplish  anything. 

In  the  meanwhile,  the  French  Government,  through  its  Ministers  in 
Stockholm  and  Copenhagen,  endeavored  to  get  the  Scandinavian  States 
to  unite  and  to  form  an  alliance  as  in  1756,  and  to  equip  fleets  for  the 
protection  of  merchant  ships  against  the  English  cruisers.^  The 
Swedish  Government  was  much  in  favor  of  the  plan  for  a  concerted 
action  by  the  Scandinavian  States. 

§  ^2,  page  i6y. — In  the  month  of  February,  1779,*  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment made  answer  to  the  proposition  which  had  come  from  the 
Danish-Norwegian  and  from  the  Swedish  Governments.  It  stated  that 
tl  e  Empress  would  be  glad  to  aid  in  the  protection  of  commerce  and 
navigation.  The  Empress  would  in  the  coming  spring  send  out  three 
or  four  ships  of  the  line  and  frigates  from  Archangel  on  a  cruise  along 
Russia's  northern  coast  as  far  as  Cape  North  to  protect  commerce 
and  navigation,  and  she  proposed  as  well  that  the  Danish- Norwegian 
and  the  Swedish  Kings  should  send  a  like  number  of  war-ships  to  cruise 
along  their  countries'  coasts,  so  that  they  might  act  together  and  sup- 
port one  another,  if  needs  be,  toward  any  attack  upon  navigation. 

The  Empress  invited  the  two  other  Powers  to  enter  into  a  "concert,'' 
and  to  act  together  with  regard  to  the  belligerent  States.  They  should 
direct  their  Ambassadors  in  London  and  in  Paris  to  act  together  and, 
in  order  that  the  declarations  which  they  were  to  make  should  be 
uniform,  to  join  them  in  draft  torm  to  the  note  which  the  Empress 
considered  sending  to  the  Governments  of  the  belligerent  countries. 
It  was  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Russia  desired  to  equip  a  fleet 


^Cf.  Bernstorff's  note  to  the  Ambassador  in  Stockholm,  of  August  25,  quoted 
above. 

2Holm  in  Dansk  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  loc.  cit.,  p.  27. 

^See  Recueil  dcs  instructions  donnees  aux  ambassadcurs  dc  France,  XIII. 
Danemarc,  p.  209;  [•"auchille,  La  diplomatic  francaise,  p.  210. 

^See  Zachrisson,  loc.  cit..  annex  17. 


BOYE  55 

for  cruising  purposes  in  the  Arctic  Ocean  as  far  as  Cape  North,  and 
that  she  would  not  brook  privateering  and  interference  with  trade  in 
those  waters. 

§  55^  poge  1/8. — Panin's  draft  of  the  declaration  which  according  to 
the  order  of  the  Empress  was  laid  before  her,  was  approved  on  Febru- 
ary 27/March  9.  Thus  came  into  being  the  famous  declaration  which 
on  the  following  day,  February  28/March  10.  1780,  was  sent  to  the 
Courts  in  London,  Versailles  and  Madrid. 

In  the  declaration^  it  is  stated  that  Russian  navigation  is  fre- 
quently interfered  with  by  the  operations  of  the  belligerent  Powers. 
The  obstacles  to  commercial  freedom  in  general  and  of  Russia  in 
particular,  were  calculated  to  invite  attention  by  the  sovereign  and 
all  neutral  nations.  The  Empress  therefore  felt  the  growing  neces- 
sity of  removing  these  obstacles  by  every  means  consistent  with 
her  dignity  and  the  welfare  of  her  subjects. 

In  order  to  prevent  future  misunderstandings  and  violations, 
she  has  found  it  necessary  to  set  forth  the  following  principles 
which  she  would  follow  and  which  the  belligerent  Powers  could 
not  violate  without  injuring  the  neutrals : 

1.  Neutral  ships  should  be  free  to  sail  from  port  to  port  of  the 
belligerent  Powers  and  along  their  coasts. 

2.  Goods  belonging  to  subjects  of  belligerent  Powers  should, 
excepting  contraband,  be  free  on  neutral  vessels. 

3.  With  regard  to  what  constitutes  contraband,  Articles  10  and 
11  of  Russia's  treaty  with  England  (1766)  should  hold  and  be 
applicable  to  the  other  belligerent  Powers. 

4.  A  port  should  be  regarded  as  blockaded  when  guarded  by  a 
sufficient  number  of  stationary  war-ships  near  enough  to  each 
other  so  as  to  ofl'er  real  danger  in  entering  it. 

5.  These  fundamental  principles  should  serve  as  guide  in  decid- 
ing whether  or  not  the  prizes  were  lawfully  captured. 

The  Empress  declared  that  she  would  uphold  these  principles 
and  protect  the  honor  of  her  flag  and  security  of  the  commerce 
and  navigation  of  her  subjects  against  any  one  and  that  she  had 
directed  a  considerable  part  of  her  sea  power  to  be  made  ready  to 
sail.  These  measures  should  nevertheless  not  affect  her  strict 
neutrality  which  she  had  conscientiously  observed  and  would  con- 
tinue to  observe  as  long  as  she  might  not  be  required  and  forced  to 
go  beyond  moderation  and  beyond  the  absolute  bounds  of  im- 
partiality. But  in  this  extreme  event,  her  fleet  would  be  given 
orders  to  sail  forth  wherever  honor,  service  and  necessity  might 
demand  that  this  be  done. 


^See  Bergbohm.  loc.  cit..  p.  134;  Calvo,  Lc  droit  international  theoriquc  ct 
pratique,  vol.  4,  §  2501 ;  F.  de  Martens,  Rcciieil  dcs  traites  con'-Ius  /"'♦•  la  Russie. 
vol.  9,  p.  307. 


56  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Finally,  she  requested  the  belligerent  Powers  to  prepare  instruc- 
tions for  their  war-ships  in  accordance  with  the  aforementioned 
principles. 

The  declaration  to  the  belligerent  Powers  was  in  the  first  place 
forwarded  to  the  Courts  at  Copenhagen,  Stockholm,  The  Hague  and 
Lisbon  with  the  request  to  enter  into  an  alliance  which  should  with  its 
full  strength  protect  neutral  commerce  and  navigation  and  endeavor 
to  secure  recognition  for  the  fundamental  principles  set  forth. 

§  fiS,  page  i8/. — When  Bernstorff  received  Empress  Catherine's  dec- 
laration, he  was  not  quite  certain  whether  or  not  it  should  be  forwarded 
to  the  neutral  Powers  or  whether  it  had  been  sent  already  to  London, 
Paris  and  Madrid.  The  Russian  Ambassador  in  Copenhagen  could 
give  him  no  information  on  this  point.     .     .     . 

When  Bernstorff  communicated  to  Schumacher  in  Petersburg  the 
contents  of  Sacken's  note  and  his  answer,  he  added  the  following  in 
a  ciphered  letter : 

It  would  certainly  be  a  great  mistake  if  the  declaration  to  which 
I  refer  in  my  unciphered  letter  had  already  been  delivered ;  but 
the  ardent  genius  of  the  Empress  makes  me  believe  that  it  has 
been  done :  that  Petersburg  has  felt  part  of  the  inconveniences 
and  that  for  this  reason  explanations  have  been  made  upon  this 
matter  in  obscure  and  ambiguous  terms.  It  is  an  essential  part  of 
the  plan  not  to  issue  the  declaration  until  the  neutral  Powers  have 
united.  The  declaration  is  even  absolutely  superfluous  if  the  con- 
vention is  adopted  according  to  the  project  we  have  formed  for  it. 
It  is  still  to  be  observed  that  all  our  declarations  to  England 
and  France  with  which  we  have  treaties  must  be  essentially  differ- 
ent from  those  that  it  would  be  proper  and  just  to  send  to  the 
Powers  with  which  we  have  no  engagements.  On  this  point  France 
does  not  contest  our  principles,  England  but  a  few,  and  Spain 
alone  violates  and  controverts  all  of  them.  This  entire  situation 
and  the  sum  of  all  these  reasons  make  us  desire  that  the  whole 
idea  should  be  dropped,  at  least  with  regard  to  us.  You  can  not 
directly  propose  this,  but  you  will  give  a  hint  to  that  effect  and 
with  all  possible  caution,  in  the  conversations  you  are  to  have 
upon  the  subject  with  Count  Panin. 

On  March  31,  Bernstorff  sent  to  St.  Petersburg  the  outline  for  an 
armed  neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark-Norway.^     .     .     , 


iHolm,  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  pp.  97-104.  This  states  that  it  was  sent  March 
29.  According  to  the  register  of  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  it  is  dated 
March  31. 


BOYE  57 

The  convention  was  signed  in  Copenhagen  on  July  9,  1780,  by  the 
Danish-Norwegian  Government  and  Sacken,  the  Russian  Ambassador. 

§  39f  pO'O^  194- — The  Government  at  Stockholm  was  much  surprised 
when  it  received  Empress  Catherine's  declaration.  It  was  no  doubt 
pleased  to  see  that  it  was  the  same  proposition  which  Sweden  had 
sought  to  adopt  with  regard  to  England ;  but  the  Government  hesitated, 
because  it  did  not  appear  how  the  declaration  was  to  be  changed.^ 
The  Government  thought  it  therefore  prudent  to  secure  more  detailed 
information  upon  certain  points.^     .     .     . 

A  convention  was  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  July  21/August  1,  between 
Russia  and  Sweden.^     .     .     . 

This  treaty  was  acceded  to  by  Denmark-Norway,  and  Sweden  also 
acceded  to  the  treaty  of  July  9  between  Russia  and  Denmark-Norway. 

§  6i,  page  igg. — The  Dutch  Government,  upon  receiving  Empress 
Catherine's  declaration,  forwarded  at  once  a  friendly  answer,  and, 
standing  as  it  did  on  a  strained  footing  with  England,  would  gladly 
have  joined  the  other  neutral  States.  Tedious  negotiations  took  place 
in  the  meantime  between  the  Russian  and  Dutch  Governments.  Only 
on  November  20,  1780,  did  the  States  General  at  last  resolve  to  join 
the  neutrality  alliance  and  the  Dutch  Ambassador  in  St.  Petersburg 
was  authorized  to  sign  the  convention  with  Russia,  which  took  place 
on  December  24,  1780/January  4,  1781. 

§  62,  page  200. — The  Russian  declaration  was  not  sent  to  the  Prus- 
sian Government  because  at  the  time  Prussia  had  no  war  fleet.  Count 
Goertz,  the  Prussian  Minister  in  St.  Petersburg,  had  in  the  meanwhile 
been  notified  privately  that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  Prussia  to  join 
the  alliance.  The  Prussian  King,  Frederick  the  Great,  was  desirous 
of  protecting  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  his  subjects,  and  forth- 
with gave  to  his  Ministers  in  St.  Petersburg  directions  to  negotiate 
a  treaty  with  the  Russian  Government.  He  also  desired  to  come  into 
closer  relations  with  Russia  in  order  to  counteract  a  Russian-Austrian 
alliance. 

Even  before  the  negotiations  had  been  completed,  the  Prussian  Gov- 
ernment issued,  April  30,  1781,  a  declaration  and  ordinance  about  the 


^See   C.    T.   Odner.   Minne   af  riksraadet   grefve    Ulrik   Scheffer   in   Svenska 
akademicns  handliiigar,  for  the  year  1886,  p.  177. 
-See  Zachrisson,  loc.  cit.,  p.  32. 
^Ihid.,  pp.  76-80,  annex  18. 


58  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

navigation  and  commerce  of  Prussian  subjects  during  the  war.^  This 
declaration  followed  exactly  the  text  of  the  Russian  declaration  of  1780. 
The  list  anent  contraband  is  the  same  as  that  stated  in  the  Russian- 
English  treaty  of  June  20,  1766.-  It  further  strengthened  the  principle 
"free  ship,  free  goods,"  which  Frederick  the  Great  had  set  forth  in 
the  middle  of  the  century. 

Because  war  had  broken  out  between  England  and  Holland,  and 
Dutch  navigation  had  been  ruined,  the  Dutch  therefore  sought  to  carry 
on  their  commerce  under  the  neutral  flag.  The  Prussians  especially 
took  over  a  large  part  of  the  Dutch  transportation  :^ 

The  Prussian  merchant  ships  which  were  seized  or  threatened  by 
the  war-ships  or  privateers  of  the  belligerent  States  were  compelled  to 
get  protection  from  the  war-ships  of  the  northern  Powers  or  to  pro- 
ceed under  their  convoy,  as  these  Powers  had  united  in  the  defense 
of  the  neutral  merchant  ships  against  attack  by  the  belligerents. 

On  May  8/19,  1781,  the  Prussian-Russian  convention  was  concluded. 
In  well  nigh  all  points  it  conformed  to  the  convention  between  Russia 
and  Denmark-Norway. 

The  Prussian-Russian  convention  was  joined  in  by  Denmark-Norway 
and  by  Sweden  with  separate  explanatory  declarations  in  reference  to 
the  accession. 

Prussia's  accession  to  the  neutrality  alliance  proved  fortunate  to 
Prussian  merchant  ships.  Complaints  of  Prussian  ship-owners  were 
speedily  settled  in  London  and  piracy  decreased.* 

The  declaration  of  the  armed  neutrality  alliance  was  further  acceded 
to  by  Austria  on  October  9,  1781  f  by  Portugal  on  July  13/24,  1782, 
and  by  the  kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies  on  February'  10/21,  1783. 

The  accession  of  the  last-named  Powers  to  the  neutrality  alliance 
was  essentially  only  of  moral  significance.  Besides,  they  entered  into 
treaties  with  Russia  alone,  without  any  formal  acceptance  thereof  by 
the  other  participating  States.** 


^Post,  p.  391. 

2At  the  time  Prussia  had  no  treaty  as  to  what  should  be  understood  by  con- 
traband. See  O.  Eichelmann,  in  Russian  Rcviczv,  1880.  p.  245  ;R.  Kleen,  Om 
Krigskontraband,  p.  62. 

■''Richard  Krauel,  Prenssen  und  die  hewaffnete  N eutralit'dt  v.  lySo,  in  For- 
schungcn  zur  Brandenburgischen  und  Preussischen   Gcschichte,  vol.  21,   p.    141. 

In  1781,  only  eleven  Dutch  ships  passed  the  Sound,  wliile  an  average  of  2,000 
passed  throuRh  it  in  the  previous  year.  In  1780,  671  Prussian  ships  passed 
through  the  Sound,  the  number  of  which  increased  to  1507  in  1781. 

*Ibid.,  p.  143. 

^'Post,  p.  403. 

"Eichelmann  in  Russian  Review,  1880,  p.  244. 


BOYE  59 

§  6^. — The  declaration  of  Catherine  II  had  a  sorry  reception  in 
England.  This  country  would  not  give  up  her  ancient  practice  of 
capturing  enemy  goods  found  on  neutral  ship.  The  English  Govern- 
ment therefore  answered  the  imperial  declaration,  that  England  would 
abide  by  the  provisions  of  the  different  treaties  and  that,  with  regard 
to  all  nations  with  which  she  had  concluded  treaties  anent  different 
provisions,  she  would  act  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  the  general  law  of  nations.  With  special  reference  to  Russia,  Eng- 
lish war-ships  and  corsairs,  from  the  beginning  of  the  war,  had  been 
enjoined  to  show  the  Empress'  flag  special  respect  and  to  observe  the 
provisions  of  treaties.  In  case  any  inconvenience  should  nevertheless 
be  caused,  this  would  be  adjusted  before  the  courts  of  justice.^ 

In  France,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Empress'  declaration  was  received 
with  great  joy.  The  French  Government  declared  in  its  answer  that 
it  accepted  in  full  the  viewpoint  of  the  declaration.  It  gave  expression 
of  its  satisfaction  that  Russia  and  the  other  neutral  Powers  were  de- 
manding that  which  France  had  conceded  long  since.- 

The  Spanish  Government  also  gave  kindly  answer  to  the  declaration 
of  the  Empress.  It  held  England  responsible  for  the  attack  which 
Spanish  privateers  had  committed.  The  Spaniards  had  been  forced 
to  follow  England's  example  in  seizing  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships. 
As  soon  as  England  put  an  end  to  such  acts,  Spain  would  do  the  same. 
The  suspicion  to  which  the  neutral  ships  had  subjected  themselves  when 
they  sailed  to  Gibraltar  which  was  blockaded,  they  could  have  avoided 
by  conforming  to  the  regulation  issued  on  March  13,  1780.^ 

§  79>  P^O^  -5^- — -^t  the  suggestion  of  Sacken.  the  English  admiralty 
issued  under  date  of  March  21,  1800  the  following  general  order  to 
the  fleet  and  to  the  commanders  of  ships : 

Whereas  upon  transmitting  to  the  right  hon.  lord  Grenville 
one  of  his  Maj.  principal  secretaries  of  state,  copies  of  letters, 
which  we  had  received  from  the  right  hon.  lord  Keith  commander 
in  chief  of  his  Majesty's  ships  and  vessels  in  the  Mediterranean 
representing  that  the  captain  of  his  Danish  Majesty's  frigate  "Haw- 
frewen"  had  refused  to  permit  the  captain  of  his  Majesty's  ship 
the  "Phoenia"  to  examine  the  merchant  ships  under  his  the  said 
Danish  captain's  convoy  and  that  in  making  resistance  when  the 
same  was  attempted  by  the  boats  of  his  Majesty's  ship  the  "Emer- 


^Post,  p.  282. 

2Fauchille,  loc.  cit.,  p.  381  ;  post,  p.  284. 

^Bergbohm,  loc.  cit.,  p.  142. 


60  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

aid"  a  man  belonging  to  the  said  ship  had  been  wounded;  lord 
Grenville  hath  by  his  letter  of  the  3d.  instant  signified  to  us  his 
Majesty's  pleasure  that  the  commanders  of  his  Majesty's  ships 
of  war  should  be  informed  that  if  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
examining  neutral  vessels  according  to  the  practice  and  law  of 
nations  they  should  experience  resistance  by  force  either  on  the 
part  of  any  merchant  vessels  or  of  any  ship  or  ships  of  war  acting 
as  convoy  to  such  vessels,  such  forcible  resistance  should  be  con- 
sidered as  an  act  of  hostility,  and  that  both  the  merchant  vessels 
and  the  armed  ships  should  be  detained  and  brought  into  one  of 
his  Majesty's  ports,  either  for  legal  adjudication  or  to  await  the 
result  of  such  demand  as  his  Majesty  may  think  proper  to  make 
of  satisfaction  from  the  powers,  by  whom  such  armed  force  may 
have  been  commissioned.  We  do  in  pursuance  of  his  Majesty's 
pleasure  above  signified  hereby  require  and  direct  you  on  falling 
in  with  any  ships  or  vessels  of  the  description  above  mentioned, 
to  govern  yourself  accordingly. 

(Adm.  sec.  Orders  &  Instructions  in  the  English  Public  Record 
Office.) 

§  8o. — After  this  general  order  to  the  English  war-ships  with  regard 
to  the  searching  of  neutral  merchant  ships  sailing  under  convoy,  a 
serious  conflict  could  not  long  be  stayed. 

On  July  25,  1800,  a  convoy  of  six  Danish  and  Norwegian  ships 
under  the  frigate  Freya,  Captain  Krabbe,  was  held  up  in  the  channel 
by  an  English  fleet  of  six  war-ships,  of  which  four  were  frigates, 
under  Commander  Backer.^  The  latter  sent  word  that  he  wanted  to 
search  the  convoy.  Captain  Krabbe  answered  that  pursuant  to  his 
instructions  he  found  it  necessary  to  resist,  and  that  the  vessels  carried 
no  contraband.  He  offered  to  show  the  ships'  papers.  Commander 
Backer's  ship  approached  the  Freya  and  renewed  his  request  for  a 
search  and  fired  a  shot  at  one  of  the  vessels  of  the  convoy  which  was 
answered  in  kind  from  the  Freya.  The  English  commander  repeated 
his  request  for  a  search  of  the  convoy  which  Captain  Krabbe  said  he 
would  resist.  When  the  English  commander  nevertheless  sent  out  a 
boat  to  search  one  of  the  vessels  of  the  convoy.  Captain  Krabbe  gave 
orders  to  fire  at  the  boat.  Commander  Backer  then  fired  a  broadside  at 
the  Freya,  which  replied  in  kind,  and  the  unequal  battle  continued  for 
one  hour.  But  as  the  Freya  was  alone  against  six,  she  had  finally  to 
strike  her  colors,  and  together  with  the  convoy  was  taken  to  the  English 
port  of  Dawnes.  The  Freya  had  two  dead  and  five  wounded  on  board, 
and  the  frigate  was  severely  damaged  in  the  battle. 


^See  report  on  this  matter  in  Eggers,  Actcnstiicke,  p.  39. 


BOYE  61 

§  8i,  page  264. — When  the  Danish-Norwegian  Government  was  in- 
formed of  the  seizure  of  the  Freya,  it  approached  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment through  its  then  Ambassador  in  Petersburg,  Niels  Rosenkrantz.^ 
The  Ambassador  explained  that  his  Government  intended,  with  respect 
to  England,  to  controvert  the  latter's  claims  to  search  merchant  ships 
under  convoy  and  intimated  the  desirability  that  Russia  restore  the 
neutrality  alliance  of  1780,  "the  system  which  Russia  had  always  re- 
garded as  her  peculiar  task  and  which  had  generally  accrued  to  her 
honor." 

As  Emperor  Paul  had  at  this  time  broken  off  relations  with  his 
former  allies,  England  and  Austria,  and  recalled  his  Ambassadors  from 
London  and  Vienna,  he  now  approached  Prussia  and  France.  Special 
circumstances  had  contributed  to  this  course. 

According  to  an  agreement  in  1798  between  England  and  Russia, 
Malta,  which  was  in  the  possession  of  France,  was  to  be  returned  to 
the  Order  of  St.  John,  as  soon  as  it  was  pregnable.  The  island  was 
now  occupied  by  English  troops  which  meanwhile  refused  to  surrender 
it  to  the  Knights  of  Malta.  As  Emperor  Paul  was  the  Grand  Master 
of  the  Order,  he  felt  very  much  offended  by  this  refusal.  He  felt  bitter 
also  because  Englishmen  had  refused  to  exchange  his  French  prisoners 
as  against  the  Russian  soldiers  who  were  prisoners  of  war  in  France. 

Napoleon  Bonaparte  (at  this  time  First  Consul)  had  received  with 
glee  the  information  about  Emperor  Paul's  rising  wrath  against  Eng- 
land, and  he  now  proceeded  to  profit  by  the  fact.  He  liberated  all 
Russian  prisoners  of  war  in  France  (about  eight  to  ten  thousand  men) 
and  sent  them  home  well  clothed  and  equipped.  A  lively  exchange  of 
letters  now  took  place  between  Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  Emperor  Paul.^ 
It  was  Bonaparte's  idea  at  the  time  to  enter  into  an  alliance  with  Russia 
in  order  to  break  England's  power,  and  he  recalled  to  Emperor  Paul 
the  armed  neutrality  alliance  which  Catherine  H  had  established  and 
the  principles  which  the  neutral  States  had  asserted  at  the  time. 

When  Emperor  Paul  received  information  from  the  Danish-Nor- 
wegian Government  in  regard  to  the  capture  of  the  convoy  Freya  by 
Englishmen,  and  was  at  the  same  time  requested  to  take  the  lead  for 
the  union  of  the  neutral  States  he  availed  himself  at  once  of  the 
opportunity  which  presented  itself  to  oppose  England  and  if  possible 
to  break  her  power.     He  had  a  declaration,  dated  August  15/27,  sent 


^See  Holm,  Daiimark  Norges  iidenrigske  historie,  lygi-iSoy,  vol.  1,  pp.  326- 
327. 
^See  Schiern,  Historiske  studier,  p.  202. 


62  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

to  the  Courts  of  Copenhagen,  Stockholm  and  Berhn,  by  which  he 
made  a  demand  for  the  upholding  of  the  principles  which  had  been 
established  by  the  neutrality  alliance  of  1780,  in  order  to  protect  neutral 
navigation  and  to  parry  such  violent  acts  as  the  Danish  convoy  had 
been  exposed  to.  The  common  interests  must  thus  at  present  bring 
the  neutral  States  to  act  together  with  regard  to  England.^ 

§  82. — The  Swedish  King,  Gustavus  Adolphus  IV,  was  greatly  em- 
bittered by  England's  seizure  of  Swedish  convoys,  and  generally  by  her 
tyrannical  acts  on  the  seas.  When  he  was  informed  of  the  capture  of 
the  Danish-Norwegian  convoy  Freya,  he  addressed  a  letter,  dated 
August  20,  1800,  to  the  Russian  Emperor  Paul,  who  he  knew  was 
wroth  against  Englishmen,  and  he  proposed,  that  as  at  a  former  time, 
the  neutral  Powers  should  unite  in  defense  of  their  commerce  and 
navigation. 

Emperor  Paul  had  already  forwarded  to  the  Swedish,  the  Danish- 
Norwegian  and  the  Prussian  Ministers  in  St.  Petersburg  the  afore- 
mentioned note  of  August  15/27. 

When  this  note  reached  Stockholm,  the  Swedish  Government  replied 
at  once  favorably. 

The  Danish-Norwegian  Government  was  also  glad  to  know  that 
Russia  was  willing  to  come  forth  in  the  defense  of  neutral  navigation, 
and  to  reassert  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780.  This 
was  exactly  what  the  Danish-Norwegian  Government  had  intended  that 
Russia  should  do.  Meanwhile  it  had  been  obliged  recently  to  conclude 
with  England  the  agreement  of  August  29  and  could  not  enter  into 
the  common  struggle. 

The  Russian  proposition  contained  among  other  things  the  provi- 
sion that  the  declaration  of  the  commander  of  a  convoy  should  be 
sufficient  to  forego  search.  This  provision,  which  both  Denmark- 
Norway  and  the  other  neutral  Powers  had  asserted  with  regard  to 
England,  the  Danish-Norwegian  Government  had  not  definitely  sur- 
rendered. In  the  agreement  of  August  29,  it  had  not  acceded  to  Eng- 
land's insistence  upon  the  right  to  search  merchant  ships  under  convoy, 
but  merely  pledged  itself  not  to  send  out  convoys  until  the  disputed 
question  had  been  finally  settled  through  an  arrangement.  The  Danish- 
Norwegian  Government  thought  therefore  that  it  was  free  to  join  the 
neutrality  convention,  if  it  merely  desisted  from  sending  out  convoys. 

As  it  could  be  useful  in  supporting  the  other  neutral  States  in  the 


^Thyren,  Verldsfrcden  under  Napoleon,  in  Acta.  univ.  Lund.,  vol.  23,  p.  6. 


BOYE  63 

transactions  which  were  soon  to  be  taken  up  with  England  in  regard 
to  the  right  of  search,  the  Government  thought  best  to  assent  to  the 
Russian  proposition. 

It  would  not  be  well  to  risk  getting  into  strained  relations  with  Em- 
peror Paul  who  had  expressed  his  displeasure  because  Denmark-Nor- 
way had  weakly  met  England's  demands  and  concluded  with  her  the 
agreement  of  August  29. 

Full  authority  was  therefore  sent  to  Rosenkrantz  in  Petersburg  to 
sign  the  proposed  convention.  Prussia  also  forwarded  a  favorable 
answer. 

Conventions  of  the  same  tenor  were  signed  in  Petersburg  on  Decem- 
ber 4/16.  1800  between  Russia  and  Denmark-Norway  and  between 
Russia  and  Sweden. 

On  December  18  of  the  same  year  a  convention  was  concluded  be- 
tween Prussia  and  Russia.^ 

§  84,  page  2y^. — When  in  November  the  Danish-Norwegian  Govern- 
ment had  received  the  Russian  plan  for  the  neutrality  convention  and 
had  given  Rosenkrantz  full  power  to  accede  to  it,  it  did  not  then  have 
knowledge  of  the  hostile  relations  which  had  arisen  between  England 
and  Russia. 

Bernstorff  was  very  anxious  that  the  English  Government  should  not 
believe  that  Denmark-Norway  had  taken  the  initiative  in  the  formation 
of  the  alliance,  but  that  it  had  come  from  Russia,  and  that  the  alliance 
was  of  a  purely  defensive  character.  Bernstorff  therefore  gave  detailed 
instructions  to  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  the  Danish-Norwegian  Ambassador  in 
London,  as  to  how  he  should  act  toward  the  English  Government.  On 
December  20,  1800,  Bernstorff  wrote  to  Wedel-Jarlsberg  as  follows : 

The  whole  of  Europe  knows  at  present  with  what  zeal  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  has  been  endeavoring  to  reestablish  the  system 
of  armed  maritime  neutrality ;  we  do  not  conceal  the  part  we  are 
taking  in  these  important  negotiations,  but  we  are  very  desirous 
not  to  have  our  views  in  this  matter  misunderstood. 

At  the  time  of  the  capture  of  the  royal  frigate  Freya  and  of  its 
convov,  the  British  Government  believed  or  pretended  to  believe 


^Post,  pp.  531,  537,  544. 

In  a  treaty  concluded  on  July  11,  1799,  with  the  United  States  of  America, 
Prussia  had,  in  its  Article  12,  abolished  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods," 
which  had  been  agreed  to  in  the  treaty  of  1785,  without  replacing  it  with  some 
other  provision.     Martens,  Recucil.  2d  ed.,  vol.  6,  p.  669. 

By  the  treaty  of  neutrality  of  1800  Prussia  approves  the  said  principle. 


64  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

in  the  existence  of  a  maritime  confederation  intended  to  put  a 
limit  to  its  power.  But  whether  or  not  its  worries  in  this  regard 
were  real,  it  must  have  become  convinced  long  since  that  this 
union  of  the  neutral  maritime  Powers  was  brought  about  merely 
in  consequence  of  this  act  of  violence  by  which  it  pretended  to 
stifle  from  its  inception  the  supposed  or  feared  coalition. 

It  is  the  Emperor  of  Russia  who  conceived  the  project  formally 
to  reestablish  the  armed  maritime  neutrality,  and  he  it  was  who 
first  submitted  the  proposition  to  the  northern  Courts.  We  were 
the  less  inclined  to  hesitate  in  accepting  that  proposition,  because, 
far  from  ever  having  renounced  the  system  of  this  maritime  neu- 
trality which  it  is  now  the  intention  to  reestablish  in  its  original 
form,  we  have  constantly  complained  because  in  the  present  war 
Russia  thought  it  her  duty  to  suspend  the  principles  of  that  neu- 
trality in  the  interest  of  Great  Britain.  We  have  never  ceased  to 
demand  principles  and,  abandoned  by  Russia,  we  have  even  con- 
tracted with  Sweden  public  and  formal  engagements,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  and  defending  them. 

We  are  therefore  not  in  position  to  adopt  a  new  system,  but 
it  would  be  a  great  satisfaction  to  us  to  know  that  Russia  would 
return  to  that  system  which  we  have  never  abandoned.  We  bring 
to  this  system  only  viewpoints  enabling  us  to  protect  ourselves 
against  suspicion  or  blame  on  the  part  of  the  belligerent  Powers. 
These  views  are  absolutely  of  a  defensive  nature  and  are  restricted 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  rights  whose  inviolability  evidently  needs 
to  be  guaranteed  through  the  scrupulous  observance  of  the  duties 
of  neutrality.  We  are  very  far  from  desiring  to  embarrass  the 
belligerent  Powers  in  the  exercise  of  those  legitimate  rights  to 
which  war  entitles  them,  but  we  believe  that  we  are  neither  offend- 
ing nor  interfering  with  them  by  adopting  together  with  our  allies, 
measures  intended  to  guarantee  our  flag  from  the  oppression  and 
the  injuries  resulting  from  an  abuse  of  these  rights. 

The  engagements  which  to  that  effect  we  are  about  to  renew 
with  Russia  are  not  of  a  kind  to  give  offense  or  provocation  to 
any  one.  They  are  to  rest  on  the  most  strict  fulfillment  of  the 
obligations  of  neutrality,  and  will  state  the  duties  of  the  neutrals 
alongside  of  their  rights ;  they  will  in  no  way  depart  from  the 
proper  provisions  of  our  treaties  with  either  the  one  or  the  other 
of  the  Powers  at  war,  and  their  effect  will  be  directed  only  against 
manifest  violations  which,  no  doubt,  have  been  committed  fre- 
quently and  with  impunity  against  neutral  navigation,  but  of  which 
the  Governments  that  have  authorized  or  tolerated  them,  would  not 
confess  the  intention,  by  entering  a  complaint  against  measures 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  repressing  them.^ 


^From  the  archives  of  the  Danish  Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs. 


BOYE  65 

§  86,  page  280. — The  establishment  of  the  neutrality  alliance  roused 
much  bitterness  in  England.  The  claim  that  neutral  ships  should  be 
permitted  to  carry  enemy  goods  and  that  Englishmen  should  place  re- 
strictions upon  the  traditional  right  of  search  and  of  capture,  was 
looked  upon  as  an  attack  upon  England's  "old  maritime  rights"  and 
an  attempt  to  curb  her  dominion  on  the  seas. 

When  on  February  2,  1801,  the  English  King  opened  Parliament, 
he  referred  to  the  neutrality  alliance  which  purposed  "establishing  by 
force  a  new  code  of  maritime  law,  inconsistent  with  the  rights,  and 
hostile  to  the  interests  of  this  country."  The  King  had  therefore 
"taken  the  earliest  measures  to  repel  the  aggressions  of  this  hostile 
confederacy,  and  to  support  those  principles  which  are  essential  to  the 
maintenance  of  our  naval  strength." 

It  was  repeatedly  declared  in  Parliament  that  England  could  not 
assent  to  the  claim  of  the  northern  Powers  and  that  she  could  not 
recognize  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods,"  nor  any  of  the  other 
principles  set  forth  by  them.     .     .     . 

Meanwhile  the  seizure  of  the  Danish-Norwegian  and  Swedish  vessels 
was  kept  up  in  Great  Britain  and  in  her  colonies,  and  many  complaints 
were  entered  against  the  reckless  expeditions  of  privateers.  English 
war-ships  and  corsairs  in  indiscriminate  and  inconsiderate  fashion  en- 
tered even  into  Norwegian  ports  and  coast  islands  and  searched  for 
them. 

§  8y,  page  28^,. — Preparations  were  made  for  the  defense  of  Copen- 
hagen against  attacks  from  the  sea,  and  ten  ships  of  the  line  were 
equipped. 

The  Swedish  Government  thought  it  safe  to  prepare  for  war  and 
had  eleven  ships  of  the  line  equipped  in  Karlskrona.  In  the  Russian 
ports  also  similar  preparations  were  pushed  with  all  strength.  Russia 
had  about  twenty  good  fighting  ships  in  the  Baltic,  of  which  twelve 
were  gathered  at  Reval. 

§  88. — In  February,  1801,  England  found  herself  in  a  difficult  posi- 
tion. She  was  at  war  with  France  and  in  more  or  less  strained  relations 
with  Russia,  Sweden,  Prussia  and  Denmark-Norway.  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte demanded  that  Naples  and  Portugal  close  their  ports  to  English- 
men and  they  hardly  dared  to  omit  complying  with  the  demand.  If 
now  the  Scandinavian  States,  Russia  and  Prussia,  should  also  take 
sides  with  France,  England's  commerce  and  navigation  would  be  ruined 
and  her  dominion  of  the  seas  seriouslv  threatened.     In  addition  to  this 


66  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

there  was  discontent  among  the  English  population  and  complaints 
because  of  the  wretched  times  and  famine  in  every  region  of  the 
country. 

The  English  Government  found  it  necessary,  as  soon  as  possible,  to 
break  the  neutrality  alliance. 

The  English  Government  realized  that  in  case  the  Russian  fleet 
should  unite  with  the  Swedish  and  the  Danish,  such  power  would  be  a 
dangerous  enemy  for  the  English  fleet  and  make  English  dominion  on 
the  seas  insecure.  The  Government  had  therefore  resolved,  in  the 
course  of  the  winter  to  gather  a  strong  fleet  at  Yarmouth  which  should 
sail  for  the  Baltic  and  by  threats  persuade  the  Scandinavian  countries 
to  abandon  the  neutrality  alliance,  and  in  case  of  refusal  to  do  so,  to 
use  force  against  them  before  they  could  bring  their  fleet  together, 
and  thereafter  to  destroy  the  Russian  fleet. 

First  and  foremost  was  the  question  of  preventing  Denmark- 
Norway,  which  was  the  most  considerable  as  a  war  and  commercial 
Power,  from  staying  in  the  neutrality  alliance.  The  English  Govern- 
ment believed  that  a  show  of  force  before  Copenhagen  and  threat  of 
war  would  bring  Denmark-Norway  to  terms. 

§  Sg,  page  2pi. — The  English  Charge  d'Affaires  in  Copenhagen, 
Drumm.ond,  had.  but  in  vain,  sought  to  induce  Denmark-Norway  to 
renounce  the  neutrality  alliance,  and  proposed  a  defensive  alliance  with 
England.     .     .     . 

As  the  English  fleet  approached  Copenhagen,  the  Government  realized 
that  force  was  now  to  be  resorted  to.  On  March  29,  an  embargo  was 
placed  upon  all  British  merchantmen  within  the  Danish  and  Norwegian 
ports.  On  the  same  day,  Danish  troops  under  Prince  Karl  of  Hessen 
occupied  Hamburg  to  destroy  English  commerce  with  that  town.  A 
few  days  later,  Liibeck  also  was  occupied  by  Danish  troops.^  This 
occurred  after  consultation  with  Prussia,  which  caused  Hannover, 
Oldenburg  and  Bremen  to  be  occupied. 

On  March  30,  the  English  fleet  passed  Kronberg.  .  .  .  After 
the  commander  in  chief  had  spied  out  the  defenses.  Lord  Nelson,  with 
ten  ships  of  the  line  and  numbers  of  small  craft,  ordered  the  destruction 
of  the  Danish  war-ships.  Before  this  had  been  accomplished,  the  English 
fleet  could  not  proceed  toward  its  real  object:  the  destruction  of  the 
Russian  fleet  at  Reval.     It  could  not  sail  forth  so  long  as  it  had  a 


^Schiem,  Historiskc  studier,  vol.  1,  p.  206. 


BOYE  67 

hostile  force  in  the  rear.    On  April  2,  Maundy  Thursday,  Lord  Nelson 
attacked  in  the  well-known  battle  of  the  Copenhagen  roadway. 

The  English  fleet  had  not  looked  for  such  a  powerful  and  vigorous 
reply  from  the  Danish-Norwegian  fleet  and  from  the  coast  defenses 
about  Copenhagen.^  It  is  well  known  that  Parker,  the  English  com- 
mander in  chief,  had  thought  of  discontinuing  the  battle  and  had  given 
orders  to  that  effect  to  Lord  Nelson.  The  latter  had  no  desire  to 
withdraw.  He  sent  a  parliamentarian  to  the  Danish-Norwegian  Prince 
to  say  that  firing  must  cease;  if  not,  he  would  feel  compelled  to  blow 
up  all  the  block-ships  with  all  on  board.-  A  preliminary  truce  was 
concluded,  by  which  Nelson  profited  by  repairing  those  of  his  vessels 
which  were  in  danger  of  being  ruined.  Negotiations  were  initiated 
between  Nelson  and  the  Crown  Prince  when  Nelson  proposed  an 
alliance  with  England.  When  the  Crown  Prince  declined,  the  English- 
man demanded  that  Denmark  should  disarm  and  break  her  treaty  with 
Russia.  This  also  was  refused  on  the  part  of  Denmark.  After  long 
deliberations  an  agreement  for  a  truce  was  reached  on  April  9,^  accord- 
ing to  which  hostilities  were  to  cease  (Article  1)  ;  the  Danish  war-ships 
were  to  remain  in  their  then  condition  and  equipment,  and  the  armed 
neutrality  alliance,  in  so  far  as  active  participation  therein  on  Denmark's 
side  was  concerned,  should  be  suspended  as  long  as  the  truce  was  to 
continue  (Article  2).  The  English  fleet  was  to  procure  from  Copen- 
hagen and  the  Danish  coast  whatever  it  might  be  in  need  of  for  the 
occupation  (Article  4).  All  the  Danish  prisoners  of  war  were  to 
be  released  (Article  5).  The  truce  was  to  last  fourteen  weeks 
(Article  7).     .     .     . 

On  May  18,  the  Russian  Government  lifted  the  embargo  on  English 
ships,  and  similar  action  on  the  part  of  Sweden  was  taken  on  the 
following  day. 

Hostilities  between  England  on  the  one  hand  and  Russia,  Sweden 
and  Denmark-Norway  on  the  other  were  thus  brought  to  an  end. 

Prussia  also  came  soon  into   friendly  relations  with   England  and 


^See  C.  F.  Allen,  Slaget  paa  Kjobenhaviis  red  in  Dansk  folkekalcnder,  1842,  p. 
41 ;  Frederik  Schiern,  Om  den  bevaebnede  neutralitet  in  Historiske  studier,  vol. 
1,  p.  192;  Zahrtmann  in  Nyt  archtv  for  sovaesenet,  vol.  1,  p.  168;  Naval  Chronicle 
for  1801;  Southey,  Life  of  Nelson,  ch.  7;  Jacob  Aall,  Erindringer,  ch.  2;  K.  L. 
Seidelin,  Krig  for  havcnes  frihet.  Copenhagen,  1801. 

2See  William  Massey,  History  of  England,  vol.  4  (1865),  pp.  351-352;  Holm, 
Danmark-Norges  iidenrigske  historie,  vol.  1,  pp.  398  et  seq. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  238. 


68  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

again  opened  navigation  on  the  Weser,  as  it  was  also  opened  on  the 
Elbe  pursuant  to  a  convention  between  Prussia,  Denmark-Norway  and 
England. 

§  po,  page  2Q§. — The  English  Government  sent  Lord  Helens  to  St. 
Petersburg  at  the  request  of  the  Russian  Government  in  order  to  nego- 
tiate with  the  latter.  On  June  5/17  a  convention  was  signed  by  him 
and  the  Russian  Minister,  Panin,  reestablishing  good  relations  between 
Russia  and  England.^ 

§  gi,  page  2g8. — The  result  of  this  last  armed  neutrality  alliance  was 
that  the  ancient  rule  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare,  that  enemy  goods  could 
be  captured  on  neutral  ships,  was  secured  by  the  convention  of  1801. 
The  allied  Powers  had  thus  not  succeeded  in  having  accepted  the  most 
important  of  the  principles  which  they  had  asserted  with  regard  to 
England,  to  the  effect  that  enemy  goods  (excepting  contraband)  could 
be  carried  free  on  neutral  ships. 

This  settlement  was  a  peculiar  one,  as  in  England  it  met  with  strong 
resistance,  because  looked  upon  as  an  obstacle  to  maintaining  England's 
supremacy  on  the  seas.* 

The  only  concession  which  England  had  made  to  the  neutrals  on  this 
point  was  that  she  would  not  regard  as  enemy  goods  such  articles  as 
were  produced  in  the  enemy  country  by  cultivation  or  industrial  labor 
when  such  articles  remained  neutral  property. 

Furthermore,  England  had  won  her  point :  that  merchant  ships  under 
convoy  should  submit  to  search  by  English  war-ships.  This  had  been 
the  main  reason  for  the  formation  of  the  last  neutrality  alliance.  The 
fact  that  England  acknowledged  that  corsairs  should  not  be  entitled 
to  search  convoys  was  of  minor  importance.  English  corsairs  had 
generally  not  ventured  to  demand  that  they  be  permitted  to  search 
merchant  ships  convoyed  by  war-ships. 

On  the  other  hand,  England  had  admitted  the  clause  of  the  aniied 
neutrality  alliance  that  neutral  ships  should  be  free  to  sail  to  the  ports 


^Post,  p.  595. 

20n  November  13,  1801,  Lord  Nelson  speaking  in  the  Upper  House  of  the 
convention  with  Russia  of  June  5,  1801,  said : 

"It  had  put  an  end  to  the  principle  endeavored  to  be  enforced  by  the  armed 
neutrality  in  1780  and  by  the  late  combination  of  the  northern  Powers,  that 
free  ships  made  free  goods, — a  proposition  so  monstrous  in  itself,  so  contrary 
to  tlie  law  of  nations,  and  so  injurious  to  the  maritime  rights  of  this  country, 
that,  if  it  had  been  persisted  in,  we  ought  not  to  have  concluded  the  war  with 
those  Powers  while  a  single  man,  a  single  shilling,  or  even  a  single  drop  of 
blood  remained  in  the  country."  (Debate  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Nov.  13,  1801. 
Parliamentary  History,  vol.  36,  p.  262.) 


CALVO  69 

of  belligerent  States  and  along  the  coasts  thereof.^  Likewise,  England 
by  the  convention  of  1801  had  agreed  that  war  contraband  should  be 
defined  even  as  had  been  done  in  the  neutrality  convention;  namely, 
it  should  include  arms  and  other  necessaries  of  war  ;  it  should,  however, 
not  include  timber,  nor  "naval  munitions,"  nor  necessaries  of  life. 

Regarding  the  question  of  blockade,  England  had  admitted  that  it 
must  be  efiiective.  There  was  yet  a  difference  in  expression  between 
the  rule  set  up  by  the  neutrals  and  that  figuring  in  the  convention  of 
1801.  While  in  their  convention  the  neutral  Powers  considered  the 
port  as  blockaded,  where  the  blockading  forces  consisted  of  "stationary 
and  sufficiently  nearby  vessels,"  the  expression  in  the  convention  of 
1801  was  changed,  and  being  replaced  by  or. 

England  was  therefore  entitled  to  maintain  a  blockade  by  means 
of  cruisers  and  vessels  which  were  not  stationed  before  the  blockaded 
port,  but  moved  to  and  fro  between  the  various  points.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  so-called  "paper  blockade"  was  to  be  abolished. 


CALVO :  Le  Droit  Internatio>ml  Theorique  et  Pratique,  precede  d'un 
expose  hisforique  des  progres  de  la  science  du  droit  des  gens. 
Fifth  edition.     Paris,  1896. 

Carlos  Calvo.  Argentinian  publicist  and  diplomat;  born  in  1824;  died  in  1906; 
member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law.  Mr.  Calvo  entered,  at  an  early 
date,  the  consular  service  of  his  country  and  later  was  Argentinian  minister 
at  Berlin  and  Paris.  He  therefore  was  familiar  with  the  theory  and  practice 
of  international  law.     His  most  important  works  are : 

1.  El  derecho  mternacional  tcorico  y  prdctico  de  Europa  y  America,  Paris, 
1868,  2  volumes.  It  was  also  published  in  French  under  the  above  title  and 
expanded  by  the  learned  author  into  a  comprehensive  treatise  on  international 
law,  the  fifth  edition  of  which  appeared  in  18%  in  six  volumes. 

2.  Dictionnaire  de  droit  international,  1885,  2  volumes.  This  work  covers  the 
field  of  international  law,  public  and  private,  in  the  form  of  brief  articles,  ar- 
ranged alphabetically  under  appropriate  headings,  and  is  especially  valuable  for 
the  biographical  notices  of  the  various  publicists  who  have  treated  international 
law. 


^The  clause  in  the  armed  neutrality  alliance  about  the  freedom  of  the  neutral 
Powers  to  sail  "from  port  to  port  and  along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war" 
was  nevertheless  emasculated  in  the  treaty  of  1801  to  "freely  to  the  ports  and 
upon  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war." 


70  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Mr.  Calvo  is  regarded  as  the  leading  Spanish  writer  on  international  law,  and 
as  a  Latin-American  by  origin  his  various  treatises  have  a  peculiar  value  as  a 
statement  of  the  Latin-American  theory  and  practice  as  well  as  the  system  of 
international  law  as  understood  and  applied  in  Europe. 


Volume  4,  page  414,  §  .24^8. — The  rule  established  by  the  Con- 
solato  del  Mare  was  not  merely  shaken  at  this  time  by  the  criticisms 
of  publicists  and  by  the  contrary  doctrine  of  the  courts ;  it  was  also 
censured  by  most  of  the  conventional  engagements  concluded  between 
France  and  various  nations,  to  such  an  extent  that  during  the  period 
between  1654  and  1780  it  is  found  in  only  fifteen  treaties,  while  thirty- 
six  sanctioned  the  new  principle  free  ship,  free  merchandise,  and  enemy 
ship,  enemy  merchandise} 

§  24QQ. — The  unshakable  constancy  of  the  English  policy  during 
this  period  deserves  attention  from  more  than  one  point  of  view. 

On  the  basis  of  the  maxims  proclaimed  by  Consolato  del  Mare, 
England  permitted  the  perpetration  of  the  most  odious  attacks  against 
the  property  of  the  neutrals,  including  among  the  articles  of  war 
contraband  almost  all  articles  of  licit  commerce  and  went  as  far  as 
to  confiscate  articles  of  food  and  of  clothing.  She  pretended  in  1756 
that  by  adoption,  the  Dutch  vessels  had  been  converted  into  French 
vessels,  that  is  to  say,  into  enemy  vessels,  and  she  condemned  them  to 
confiscation  in  order  to  prevent  the  French  colonies  from  continiung 
their  traffic  with  neutrals,  thus  hoping  to  monopolize  the  commerce  of 
colonial  produce.  We  know  that  the  excesses  of  this  aggressive  and 
covetous  policy  brought  about  in  1780  the  belated,  yet  generous  at- 
tempt known  under  the  name  of  first  armed  neutrality. - 

§  2500. — The  most  characteristic  trait  of  the  historic  period  which 


^See  especially  the  treaties  concluded  by  France  with  Spain,  November  7,  1659 
[Dumont,  vol.  6,  pt.  2,  p.  264;  Savoie,  vol.  2,  p.  1 ;  Leonard,  vol.  4],  with  Den- 
mark, February  14,  1663  [Dumont,  ibid.,  p.  436;  Leonard,  vol.  5],  with  Portugal, 
March  31,  1667  [Dumont,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  17;  Castro,  vol.  1,  p.  338;  Leonard, 
vol.  4],  with  Sweden,  April  14,  1672  [Dumont,  ibid.,  p.  166;  Leonard,  vol.  5], 
with  Great  Britain  and  Holland,  April  11,  1713  [Dumont,  vol.  8,  pt.  1,  pp.  345, 
2,77]. 

-Gessner,  pp.  30  ct  seq.;  Flassan,  Histoire,  vol.  1,  ch.  3,  p.  194;  Valin,  Comnicu- 
taire,  bk.  3,  title  9;  Wheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  1,  p.  62;  Wheaton,  Elements,  pt.  4, 
ch.  3,  §23;  Life  of  Sir  L.  Jenkins,  vol.  2,  p.  720;  Heffter,  §152;  Marshall  on 
Insurance,  vol.  1,  p.  425;  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  100;  Verge,  Precis  de  Martens,  vol.  2, 
p.  348;  Gessner,  pp.  Z6  et  seq.;  Wheaton,  Elements,  vol.  2,  pp.  149  et  seq.;  Heff- 
ter, §158;  Madison,  Examination,  pp.  51  et  seq.;  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  pp.  109  et  seq.; 
Reddie,  Researches,  vol.  1,  pp.  92  et  seq.;  Bergbohm,  Die  bewaffnete  Neutralitdt, 
1780-1783. 


CALVO  71 

ends  with  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  is  the  incertitude 
as  to  the  real  limitations  to  the  rights  of  neutrals,  the  logical  and 
necessary  consequence  of  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  jurisprudence,  of 
the  absence  of  understanding  between  the  secondary  maritime  Powers 
of  the  European  Continent  in  order  to  protect  themselves  against  the 
oppressions  weighing  on  them,  and  of  England's  persistent  efforts  to 
ensure  her  maritime  supremacy. 

§  2^01. — The  secret  tendencies  and  the  righteous  resentment  of  the 
principal  Courts  of  Europe  were  at  last  brought  to  the  bursting  point 
when  England  seized  in  t"he  Mediterranean  two'  Russian  vessels  loaded 
with  wheat  which  tvere  supposed  to  be  intended  for  Gibraltar. 

Panin,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Russian  Empire,  made  himself  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  general  indignation  and  persuaded  Empress  Cath- 
erine II  to  make  it  publicly  and  solemnly  known  that  she  would  not 
longer  put  up  with  the  obstacles  placed  in  the  way  of  free  neutral 
commerce.  As  a  result,  the  Russian  Government  published  on  Feb- 
ruary 28,  1780,^  the  famous  declaration  containing  the  following  five 
bases : 

1.  Neutral  vessels  are  permitted  to  sail  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  belonging  to  the  belligerent  States,  without  being  detained. 

2.  Enemy  merchandise  is  free  under  neutral  flag,  excepting  war 
contraband. 

3.  To  determine  that  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  war  contraband, 
Russia  holds  to  Articles  10  and  11  of  her  treaty  with  England,  dated 
June  20,  1766,-  to  which  it  grants  obligatory  force  with  regard  to  all 
belligerents. 

4.  No  port  shall  be  regarded  as  blockaded  unless  there  be  real  and 
effective  danger  in  entering  it,  that  is  to  say,  it  must  be  surrounded 
by  the  enemy. 

5.  These  principles  shall  serve  as  a  rule  in  the  procedures  and  deci- 
sions of  maritime  prize  courts. 

The  same  Government  furthermore  forbids  the  commission  of  hos- 
tile acts  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  to  which  Sea  it  attributed  the  character  of 
a  closed  or  internal  sea,  mare  claiisum. 

This  declaration  had  hardly  been  formulated  when  Denmark,  July 
9,  1780,^  Sweden,  August  1.  1780,*  Holland,  January  4.  1781/^  Prus- 


■^Post,  p.  273. 

2For  these  two  articles  see  post,  pp.  342,  343. 

^Post,  p.  299. 

*Post,  p.  311. 

^Post,  p.  346. 


72  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

sia,  May  8,  1781/  Austria,  October  9,  1781,-  Portugal,  July  13,  1782,=^ 
the  Two  Sicilies,  February  10,  1783,*  France  and  Spain,  as  well  as  the 
United  States  which  was  at  this  time  at  war  with  Great  Britain,  gave 
their  adhesion  to  it;  all  of  these  Powers  obligated  themselves  to  main- 
tain and  to  respect  the  new  principles  though,  to  uphold  them,  they 
should  be  forced  to  the  recourse  of  arms. 

One  understands  that  principles  such  as  Europe,  stimulated  by  the 
initiative  of  Russia,  sought  to  cause  to  prevail  in  practice  and  which  in 
evident  fashion  mark  a  new  era  in  modem  maritime  law,  could  not  re- 
ceive the  approval  of  England.  The  St.  James'  Ministry  refused  there- 
fore to  join  the  league  of  the  neutrals  declaring  that  it  would  continue 
to  hold  to  the  stipulations,  following  therein  a  precise  and  reasonable 
course,  contained  m  England's  treaties  of  commerce  and  of  navigation. 
But  once  started,  the  movement  was  not  to  stop  in  the  face  of  this  selfish 
resistance,  and  England  was  soon  compelled  to  abandon  the  violent 
road  within  which  it  pretended  to  persist  in  disregard  of  the  sacred 
rights  of  neutrality ;  she  permitted  the  importation  under  any  flag  of 
merchandise  coming  from  the  East  and  from  the  Antilles,  and  directed 
her  privateers  to  be  more  moderate  in  their  conduct.^ 

§  2§02. — After  the  conclusion  of  the  Versailles  peace  of  1783,*'  which 
closed  the  War  of  Independence  of  the  United  States,  England,  France 
and  Spain  again  put  into  force  the  stipulations  of  the  Utrecht  treaties" 
with  regard  to  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  neutrals.  Three  years 
later,  the  treaty  signed  on  September  26,  1786,^  between  France  and 
Great  Britain  sanctioned  the  general  principles  of  armed  neutrality 
in  such  a  formal  manner  that  the  English  Government  became  the 
object  in  ParHament  of  vehement  attacks  for  having  accepted  and 
recognized  them.® 


iMay  19,  1781,  new  style.     Post,  p.  397.  ^Post,  p.  403. 

3July  24,  1782,  new  style.     Post,  p.  420. 

^February  21,  1783,  new  style.     Post,  p.  433. 

'"'Gessner,  pp.  39  ct  seq.;  Wheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  1,  p.  221;  Goertz,  Memoires; 
Galiani,  Dei  doveri;  Lampredi,  Commercio ;  Wheaton,  Elements,  pt.  4,  ch.  3,  §  23 ; 
KliJber,  Droit,  §§303-305;  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  pp.  137  et  seq.;  Martens,  Precis,  §325; 
Verge,  Precis  dc  Martens,  vol.  2,  p.  351 ;  Bergbohm,  Die  bewajfnete  Neutralitdt, 
pp.  210  et  seq. 

^De  Clercq,  vol.  1,  p.  142;  Calvo,  vol.  4,  p.  296;  Cantillo,  p.  586;  Martens,  1st 
ed.,  vol.  2,  pp.  462,  484;  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  pp.  519,  541  ;  State  papers,  vol.  1,  p.  424. 

7De  Clercq,  vol.  1,  p.  10;  Dumont,  vol.  8,  pt.  1,  pp.  345,  351. 

8De  Clercq,  vol.  1,  p.  146;  Martens,  1st  ed.,  vol.  2,  p.  680;  2d.  ed.,  vol.  4,  p.  155; 
State  papers,  vol.  3,  p.  342. 

''Gessner,  pp.  43,  44;  Wlieaton,  PAcments.  pt.  4,  ch.  3,  'i^Zi;  Wheaton,  Histoire, 
vol.  1,  p.  230;  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  pp.  142,  143;  Verge,  Precis  de  Martens,  vol.  2,  p. 
354;  Parliamentary  History  of  England,  vol.  2>6,  p.  563. 


CALVO  73 

§  2^0^. — The  abnormal  conditions  of  the  war  in  the  train  of  the 
French  Revolution  unhappily  brought  about  a  return  to  all  the  violence 
and  abuse  to  which  universal  reprobation  seemed  to  have  forever  put 
an  end.  Thus,  the  allied  Governments,  in  disregard  of  the  imprescrip- 
tible rights  of  the  neutrals,  arbitrarily  extending  the  list  of  so-called 
articles  of  war  contraband,  opposed  importation  into  France  of  food 
and  merchandise  of  foreign  origin.  On  the  other  hand,  the  National 
Convention,  in  a  sense  of  legitimate  defense,  promulgated  May  9, 
1793,  a  decree  inhibiting  neutral  vessels,  under  the  penalty  of  confisca- 
tion, from  furnishing  grains  and  food  to  the  enemy,  and  edicted  the 
abrogation  of  the  principle  that  the  flag  protects  merchandise.  The 
British  Government,  secretly  availing  itself  of  this  pretext  to  return 
to  its  traditional  doctrines  of  1756,  published  on  June  8,  1793,^  an 
ordinance  directing  its  privateers  and  war-ships  to  capture  any  vessel 
attempting  to  force  the  blockade  of  the  French  coasts,  excepting  there- 
from Swedish  and  Danish  vessels,  which  were  only  to  be  seized  in 
case  they  failed  to  observe  the  notification  of  the  blockade  stated  in 
their  ship's  papers. - 

§  2504. — England's  allies  endeavored  in  vain  to  justify  these  meas- 
ures as  being  of  only  an  exceptional  and  transitory  nature;  Russia 
refused  to  abide  by  them,  separated  herself  from  England,  from 
Austria,  and  resolutely  laid  down  the  bases  of  maritime  neutrality 
which  the  States  bathed  by  the  Baltic  Sea  proclaimed  in  1800.^  These 
bases  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  A  neutral  vessel  shall  not  be  considered  as  violating  the  blockade 
and  shall  not  be  subject  to  capture  unless,  after  having  been  warned 
by  the  war-ship  or  the  privateer  of  the  State  which  enforces  the  block- 
ade, it  attempts  to  run  the  blockade  by  force  or  by  ruse. 

2.  Merchant  vessels  sailing  in  convoy  under  the  escort  of  a  war-ship 
are  exempt  from  search,  and  the  statement  of  the  convoying  ofificer  suf- 
fices to  prove  that  they  are  not  carrying  war  contraband. 

Even  before  this  new  coalition  had  had  time  to  gain  strength  and 
come  to  an  understanding,  England  declared  war  against  Denmark 
for  having  joined  the  alliance  and  proceeded  to  bombard  Copenhagen  ; 


^Martens,  1st  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  264;  2d  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  596. 

^Ortolan,  vol.  2,  pp.  144  et  seq.:  Gessner,  pp.  44.  45;  Wheaton,  Elements,  pt.  4, 
ch.  3,  §  23. 

^See  the  conventions  of  Russia  with  Denmark  of  December  16,  1800  {post, 
p.  537),  with  Sweden  of  the  same  date  {post,  p.  531),  with  Prussia  of  December 
18,  1800  {post,  p.  544). 


74  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  subsequent  tragic  death  of  Emperor  Paul  I  of  Russia  on  March 
23,  1801,  finished  the  dissolution  of  an  alliance  from  which  the  sec- 
ondary States  had  had  right  to  expect  great  advantages  for  the 
security  of  their  commerce. 

§  2jOj. — Profiting  by  the  successes  of  her  marine  against  Denmark, 
England  resumed  the  negotiations  which  she  had  conducted  with 
Russia  for  some  years,  thus  expecting  the  St.  Petersburg  Ministry 
not  only  to  dissolve  the  armed  neutrality,  but  also  to  adhere  to  the 
doctrines  proposed  by  the  British  Admiralty.  In  these  hopes  she 
was  particularly  disappointed:  as  the  price  for  some  commercial  ad- 
vantages, she  was  forced  into  consenting  that  the  maritime  convention 
of  June  17,  1801,^  should  by  its  Article  3  sanction  the  following  prin- 
ciples : 

1.  Neutral  vessels  may  freely  sail  to  the  ports  and  along  the  coasts 
of  the  belligerent  nations. 

2.  Merchandise  on  board  shall  be  free,  excepting  the  so-called  war 
contraband  and  enemy  property,  merchandise  of  enemy  origin,  but  pur- 
chased and  carried  by  the  neutral  preserving  at  all  events  the  advan- 
tages accrued  to  the  flag  of  the  latter. 

3.  In  order  to  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  nature  of  the  objects  which 
constitute  war  contraband,  the  contracting  Parties  refer  to  Article  11 
of  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded  between  themselves  on  Febru- 
ary 21,  1797.2 

4.  A  port  shall  be  regarded  as  blockaded  only  in  case  entrance 
thereto  oflters  a  real  danger  by  reason  of  the  number  of  war-ships 
charged  with  inhibiting  access  thereto. 

5.  Judicial  action  against  neutral  vessels  captured  because  of  estab- 
lished suspicions  or  of  evidently  culpable  facts  shall  be  had  without 
delay,  and  the  mode  of  procedure  shall  be  uniform  and  strictly  legal. 

The  dispositions  which  follow  shall  be  rigorously  imposed  upon  all 
the  States  wishing  to  adhere  to  the  treaty.  The  so  delicate  question  of 
the  visit  of  convoyed  ships  was  resolved  in  these  terms  by  Article  4: 

1.  The  right  of  searching  merchant  vessels  owned  by  the  subjects 
of  one  of  the  two  Powers  and  sailing  under  the  escort  of  a  war-ship  of 
their  nation  belongs  exclusively  to  vessels  of  like  rank  of  the  bellig- 
erent State,  and  may  not  be  exercised  by  private  ship-owners  nor  by 
corsairs. 


^Post,  p.  .S95. 
^Post,  p.  445. 


CALVO  75 

2.  The  owners  of  vessels  destined  to  sail  in  convoy  under  the 
escort  of  a  war-ship  shall,  before  receiving  their  nautical  instructions, 
present  to  the  chief  of  the  convoy  their  passports  and  their  sea  cer- 
tificates, in  the  form  established  by  the  treaty. 

3.  When  a  convoy  is  made  by  a  war-ship  of  the  belligerent  Parties, 
the  latter,  unless  the  weather  conditions  upon  the  sea  or  the  vicinity 
in  which  the  encounter  takes  place  prevent  it  from  doing  so,  shall  hold 
itself  beyond  cannon  range  and  send  a  longboat  to  the  convoying  ves- 
sel in  order  to  proceed  in  common  accord  to  the  examination  of  the 
papers  and  certificates  declaring  that  the  one  is  authorized  to  escort 
such  or  such  ships  with  such  or  such  cargo  from  port  A  to  port  B,  and 
that  the  other  really  belongs  to  the  royal  or  imperial  marine  of  the 
nation  whose  flag  she  flies. 

4.  After  the  regularity  of  the  papers  has  been  recognized,  any  legiti- 
mate suspicion  shall  be  regarded  as  having  been  removed.  In  the  con- 
trary case,  the  chief  of  the  convoy,  after  having  been  invited  thereto 
in  due  form  by  the  belligerent,  shall  stop  long  enough  to  permit  the 
belligerent  war-ship  to  proceed  with  the  search  of  the  vessels  compos- 
ing the  convoy. 

5.  If  after  the  examination  of  the  papers,  the  captain  of  the  war- 
ship believes  that  he  has  good  reason  to  detain  one  or  several  of  the 
convoyed  vessels,  he  shall  be  free  to  do  so  by  preliminarily  placing 
the  captain  of  the  crew  at  the  disposal  of  the  chief  of  the  escort,  who 
in  turn  shall  be  entitled  to  place  on  board  the  sequestered  vessels  any 
one  of  his  officers  to  follow  the  procedure  of  the  investigation  which 
it  will  be  necessary  to  perform.  The  captured  vessel  shall  then  be 
conducted  forthwith  to  the  nearest  and  most  convenient  port  of  the 
belligerent  nation  in  order  to  subject  it  to  a  regular  examination. 

A  last  article,  the  fifth,  forbids  the  chief  of  the  convoy  to  resist  by 
force  the  execution  of  the  acts  prescribed  by  the  commander  of  the 
belligerent  vessel. 

Various  accessory  stipulations  of  this  treaty  sanction  new  guaranties 
in  the  interests  of  the  neutrals  ;  one  of  these  in  particular  states  that 
in  case  of  an  ill-founded  detention  or  of  the  violation  of  the  estab- 
lished laws,  a  proper  indemnity  shall  be  due  the  owners  of  the  vessel 
and  of  the  cargo  in  proportion  to  the  losses  they  shall  have  sustained. 

In  order  to  forestall  the  abusive  use  of  third  flags,  Article  7  estab- 
lishes that,  in  order  that  a  vessel  may  be  regarded  as  legitimately 
belonging  to  the  nation  whose  colors  she  flies,  the  captain  and  half  of 
the  crew  must  be  subjects  of  the  same  nation. 


76  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Finally,  Article  8  declares  applicable  to  all  maritime  rules  under- 
taken by  the  contracting  Parties,  the  principles  of  this  treaty  adhered 
to  by  Denmark  on  October  23,  1801,^  and  by  Sweden  on  March  30, 
1802.- 

§  2^o6. — As  also  seen  from  this  analysis,  it  was  the  purpose  of  the 
Anglo-Russian  treaty  to  consolidate  through  general  formulas,  the 
rules  established  by  the  two  armed  neutralities  of  1780  and  of  1800 
with  the  traditional  principles  of  the  maritime  law  of  Great  Britain. 
Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  this 
arrangement  was  only  a  compromise  between  two  opposite  elements ; 
it  had,  however,  for  its  final  result  the  partial  abandonment  of  the 
violent  policy  of  the  London  Ministry.  The  nations  of  the  North  did 
indeed  consent  to  weaken  in  fact  the  rigor  of  the  doctrine  that  the 
free  vessel  protects  the  cargo  it  bears,  and  to  submit  to  the  right  of 
search  which  they  had  hitherto  opposed;  but  they  obtained  at  the  same 
time  recognition  for  the  principles  of  armed  neutrality  with  regard 
to  effective  blockades  and  to  the  commerce  with  the  colonies  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  enemy. 

To  feel  convinced  that  this  was  the  real  meaning  of  the  St.  Peters- 
burg treaty,  it  will  suffice  to  refer  to  the  discussions  which  took  place 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  at  the  sitting  of  November  12,  1801.  Lord  Gren- 
ville  spoke  first  and  declared  that  what  had  been  stipulated  was  in 
manifest  contradiction  with  the  previous  attitude  of  the  ministers  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  and  that  the  exaggerated  pretensions  of  the 
Baltic  Powers  had  been  singularly  favored  by  the  weak  and  vacillating 
policy  of  England  during  the  last  years  of  the  war  waged  against  the 
United  States.  According  to  the  same  orator,  the  Government  had 
assumed  a  yielding  attitude  whose  tendency  could  not  be  controlled, 
and  gradually  it  had  followed  a  course  it  had  not  dared  acknowledge 
one  year  before,  while  on  their  part  the  other  Powers  had  little  by 
little  yielded  the  pretensions  which  they  had  maintained  relative  to  this 
question  and  exposed  themselves,  by  following  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
Russian  Government,  to  yield  through  first  one  and  then  another  con- 
cession to  the  reestablishment  of  the  ancient  maritime  law  and  to  the 
nullification  of  conquests  .so  laboriously  realized  by  the  neutrals  during 
the  previous  twenty-five  years. 


^Post,  p.  606. 
^See  footnote,  ibid. 


CALVO  yy 

§  250/.— The  final  result  was  that  the  treaty  of  June  17,  1801/ 
proved  unsatisfactory  to  all  of  the  contracting  Parties:  to  England 
because  it  interfered  with  her  policy ;  to  the  neutrals  because  it  re- 
stricted their  rights;  and  for  this  reason  also  Russia  denounced  the 
treaty  in  the  course  of  the  year  1807  by  proclaiming  again  the  prin- 
ciples which  formed  the  basis  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1800  and  by 
pledging  herself  to  abide  by  it  faithfully  in  the  future.  Thus  freed 
from  its  conventional  engagements,  the  English  Government  reestab- 
lished its  ancient  doctrines  not  only  against  Russia,  but  even  against 
all  the  other  neutral  Powers. 

One  fact  worthy  of  our  notice  is  that  not  a  peace  treaty  or  a  com- 
mercial treaty  concluded  since  by  England,  either  with  Sweden,  or 
with  Denmark,  contains  the  slightest  stipulation  concerning  the  prin- 
ciples of  maritime  law  in  the  interest  of  the  neutrals  who  had  for  such 
a  long  time  roused  the  attention  of  Europe.^ 

Page  ^18,  §  267^8. — The  neutral  State  shall  not  merely  observe  neu- 
trality, but  even  have  its  situation  respected  by  third  parties  and  to 
that  effect  take  all  necessary  measures.  If  need  there  be,  it  may 
equip  land  and  sea  forces  in  order  to  safeguard  its  rights  against  any 
attack  and  to  prevent  the  belligerents  from  entering  its  territory : 
This  is  what  is  termed  armed  neutrality.  Neutrality,  when  the  State 
which  proclaims  it  is  not  in  position  to  make  it  respected  by  an  even- 
tual recourse  to  armed  force,  is  doubtless  a  rather  precarious  guar- 
anty. It  is  therefore  admitted  that  the  neutral  who  does  not  feel  him- 
self strong  enough  to  defend  himself  alone  is  entitled  to  ally  himself 
with  others  to  perfect  an  action  and  help  against  attacks  which  the 
belligerents  might  direct  against  their  common  neutrality.  Thus,  at  the 
end  of  the  last  century  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  one,  we 
have  seen  the  maritime  Powers  of  the  north  of  Europe  unite  collec- 
tively and  mutually  to  protect  their  rights  against  the  pretensions  of 
England  which  violated  the  independence  and  the  immunities  of  mari- 
time neutrality.^ 

Volume  5,  page  182,  §  ^p/^. — PIngland  nevertheless  persisted  in  her 


-^Post.  p.  595. 

2  Ortolan,  Regies,  vol.  2,  pp.  153-156;  Cauchy,  vol.  2,  pp.  339  et  scq.:  Gessncr, 
pp.  44-A6;  Wheaton,  Elements,  pt.  4,  ch.  3,  §23;  Kliiber,  Droit,  §§307  et  seq.; 
Martens,  Precis,  §326a;  Cussy,  Phases,  vol.  2,  pp.  203  et  seq.;  Verge,  Precis  de 
Martens,  vol.  2,  p.  355 ;  Manning,  pp.  274  et  seq. 

3Fiore,  vol.  2,  p.  369;  Bluntschli,  §§  748,  778;  Kliiber,  Droit,  §  282;  Heffter. 
§§  145,  149. 


78  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

arbitrary  policy.  In  1756,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Seven  Years'  War, 
she  declared  anew,  by  a  simple  proclamation,  a  blockade  of  all  the 
French  ports,  and  her  vessels  captured  a  large  number  of  ships  the 
most  of  which  belonged  to  Dutch  subjects.  However,  in  consequence 
of  energetic  protests  on  the  part  of  the  States  General,  these  ships  and 
their  cargoes  were  finally  returned  to  their  Government  as  an  excep- 
tional favor;  for  the  St.  James  Ministry  took  care  to  declare  that  in 
future,  any  vessel  attempting  to  violate  a  declared  blockade  would  be 
seized  and  confiscated. 

France  having  aided  the  English  colonies  of  North  America  in  their 
struggle  against  the  metropolis,  England  renewed  her  blockade  of  all 
French  ports,  by  proclaiming  that  all  vessels  met  in  destination  for  the 
said  French  ports  would  be  seized  as  legitimate  prizes.  In  this  connec- 
tion we  shall  here  quote  a  passage  from  a  decision  rendered  in  1780  by 
Judge  James  Marriott  of  the  British  admiralty  court  against  Dutch 
vessels :  "You  are  confiscated  the  moment  you  are  captured.  Owing 
to  her  insular  position.  Great  Britain  naturally  blockades  all  the  ports 
of  Spain  and  of  France.  She  is  entitled  to  profit  by  this  position  as  of 
a  gift  granted  to  her  by  Providence."^ 

§  ^9/5. — These  exaggerated  pretensions  called  into  being  a  league  of 
the  maritime  States  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  them.  On  February 
28,  1780,^  Russia  published  a  declaration  by  which  she  expressed  her 
resolution  of  resorting  to  armed  force  to  cause  the  neutrality  of  their 
flag  to  be  respected.  This  act  stated  that  "to  determine  what  consti- 
tutes a  blockaded  port,  this  designation  shall  apply  only  to  a  port 
where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and 
in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access  thereto  clearly  dangerous."  As 
may  be  seen,  this  clause  makes  the  existence  of  a  blockade  depend  on 
its  reality  and  restricts  the  eflfect  of  the  blockade  to  the  ports,  without 
distinguishing  between  fortified  places  and  mere  commercial  localities. 

On  July  8,  1780,  Denmark  made  a  similar  declaration,^  which  was 
followed  on  July  9*  and  on  August  P  by  treaties  between  Russia,  Den- 
mark and  Sweden,  by  which  those  Powers  bound  themselves,  in  case 
of  an  illegal  capture  of  their  merchant  ships  by  the  belligerent  Powers, 


^Flassan,  Histoire,  vol.  6,  p.  64;  Pistoye  et  Duverdy,  vol.  1,  p.  366;  Ortolan, 
Regies,  vol.  2,  pp.  360,  361  ;  Hautef euille,  Des  droits,  vol.  2,  p.  250 ;  Gessner,  p. 
160;  Cussy,  Phases,  vol.  2,  p.  243;  Fiore,  vol.  2,  p.  459;  Kluber,  Droit,  p.  380, 
note  c. 

^Post,  p.  273.  *Post,  pp.  299,  305. 

^Post,  p.  297.  ^'Posl,  pp.  311,  317. 


CALVO  79 

to  act  concertedly  in  order  to  secure  the  redress  of  their  grievances 
and  proper  reparations,  and  to  resort  to  reprisals  against  the  nation 
that  should  refuse  to  do  them  justice.  These  treaties,  to  which  Holland 
acceded  on  January  4,  1781,^  Prussia  on  May  8,  1781,-  the  Empire 
on  October  9  of  the  same  year,^  Portugal  on  July  13,  1782,*  and  the 
Two  Sicilies  on  February  10,  1783,^  have  been  termed  the  armed 
neutrality. 

The  definition  of  blockade  sanctioned  by  the  Russian  declaration  was 
reproduced  in  a  treaty  (Article  27)  which  France  signed  with  Russia 
on  January-  11,  1787,*^  and  in  that  (Article  18)  concluded  on  the  17th 
of  the  same  month  between  Russia  and  the  Two  Sicilies.' 

§  2Qi6. — When  the  French  Revolution  broke  out,  England  ordered 
the  seizure  of  all  neutral  vessels  en  route  to  any  French  port, — this  in 
reality  declared  all  French  coasts  in  a  state  of  blockade, — on  the  pretext 
that  international  laws  could  not  be  applied  to  this  country  in  the 
situation  in  which  it  then  found  itself.  "France,"  said  Minister  Pitt, 
"must  be  detached  from  the  commercial  world,  and  treated  as  if  she 
had  but  one  single  State,  one  single  port,  and  as  if  that  place  had  been 
blockaded  and  famished  by  land  and  by  sea."  Article  3  of  the  instruc- 
tions which  he  addressed  June  8,  1793,^  to  the  commanders  of  the 
English  war-ships  and  to  the  captains  of  English  corsairs  ordered  that : 
*Tn  case  His  Majesty  declares  some  port  blockaded,  conmianders  of 
vessels  and  ship-owners  who  meet  vessels  en  route  to  such  ports,  but 
which  had  left  ports  of  their  respective  countries  before  the  declaration 
of  the  blockade  had  reached  them,  shall  be  obliged  to  warn  them  and 
to  induce  them  to  go  elsewhere,  but  not  to  molest  them,  unless  they 
should  attempt  to  enter  the  blockaded  port.  Similar  action  shall  be 
taken  with  regard  to  the  vessels  which  have  left  a  port  of  their  country 
bound  for  a  port  declared  blockaded  after  such  declaration  shall  have 
been  known  in  the  country  whence  they  have  come,  and  likewise  with 
regard  to  any  vessel  which,  having  learned  of  the  blockade  in  the  course 
of  its  vovage,  shall  have  continued  its  course  with  the  intention  of 
entering  therein." 

Of  the  maritime  States,  Denmark  was  at  first  the  only  one  which 


^Post    p    346  -May  19,  1781,  new  style.     Post,  p.  397. 

^Post]  p.  403.  •^July  24,  1782,  new  style.     Post.  p.  420. 

spebruary  21,  1783,  new  style.     Post,  p.  433. 

6De  Clercq,  vol.  1,  p.  171;  Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  1 ;  2d.  ed.,  vol.  4, 
p.  1%. 

•Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  36;  2d  ed.,  vol.  4,  p.  229. 
^Ibid.,  1st  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  264;  2d  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  596. 


80  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

rejected  the  English  proposition  of  ceasing  all  commerce  with  France ; 
Sweden  soon  followed  the  action  of  Denmark  with  which  she  renewed 
on  March  27,  1794,^  the  conventions  of  armed  neutrality  of  1780.  The 
United  States,  on  the  contrary,  signed  with  England  on  November  19, 
1794,-  a  treaty  by  which  they  agreed  that  enemy  merchandise  on  their 
vessels  might  be  confiscable ;  they  insisted  however  upon  the  condition 
of  the  reality  of  the  blockade.  We  find  this  condition  clearly  expressed 
in  Article  16  of  the  treaty  which  they  concluded  in  1795  with  Spain,^ 
which  states  that  "neutral  merchandise  may  be  freely  carried  into  the 
ports  of  the  enemy,  provided  these  ports  are  not  besieged,  blockaded 
or  really  invested." 

In  1798  Great  Britain  extended  the  fictitious  blockade  of  the  coasts 
of  France  to  all  the  ports  and  to  the  mouths  of  all  the  rivers  of 
Belgium.* 

§  ^p//. — The  protests  of  Denmark  and  of  Sweden  won  over  to  them 
Russia  and  Prussia,  and  a  new  act  of  armed  neutrality  was  signed  by 
these  Powers  on  the  16th  and  on  the  18th  of  December,  1800.' 

Elsewhere  it  has  already  been  stated  that  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780 
had  established  in  principle  that  no  port  should  be  regarded  as  blockaded 
unless  it  were  surrounded  by  war-ships  in  sufficient  number  stationed 
near  enough  to  each  other  so  as  to  render  entrance  by  neutral  vessels 
dangerous.  The  neutrality  of  1800,  confirmed  that  rule.  Under  its 
Article  3  it  is  stated :  "To  determine  that  which  characterizes  a  port  in 
state  of  blockade,  under  this  name  shall  be  understood  only  such  port 
whose  entrance  is  evidently  dangerous  in  consequence  of  measures 
on  the  part  of  the  Power  which  attacks  it  with  vessels  intended  for 
such  an  operation  and  within  sufficient  proximity,  and  only  such 
vessels  shall  be  regarded  as  violating  the  present  convention  as  enter 
into  a  blockaded  port  or  such  other  vessels  as,  having  been  previously 
warned  of  the  state  of  the  port  by  the  commander  of  the  blockade, 
seek  to  enter  therein  by  force  of  arms  or  by  trickery." 

England  sought  to  destroy  the  alliance  of  the  neutrals  by  declaring 
war  against  the  Powers  of  the  Baltic  Sea ;  but  after  the  attack  directed 


^Post,  p.  440. 

^Post,  p.  443. 

sCalvo,  vol.  4,  p.  113;  Cantillo,  p.  665;  Elliot,  vol.  1,  p.  390;  State  Papers,  vol. 
8,  p.  540;  Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  6,  p.  561;  2d  ed.,  vol.  6,  p.  143. 

*Pistoye  et  Diiverdy,  vol.  1,  pp.  366,  367;  Ortolan,  Regies,  vol.  2,  pp.  331,  361, 
362;  Manning,  pp.  322,  323;  Masse,  vol.  1,  §§283,  284;  Heffter,  §157;  Wheaton, 
Elements,  pt.  4,  ch.  3,  §28;  Riquelme,  bk.  1,  pt.  2,  ch.  18;  Twiss,  War,  §102; 
Hautefeuille,  Dcs  droits,  vol.  2,  p.  250;  Gessner,  pp.  160,  161. 

'-Post,  pp.  531-549. 


VON  DOHM  81 

against  Copenhagen  on  April  2,  1801,  an  armistice  intervened,  and  on 
June  17th  following^  England  concluded  with  Russia  a  treaty  by  which 
she  seemed  to  admit  the  principles  defended  by  the  Powers  of  the  north. 
She  recognized  in  effect  that  in  order  that  a  port  might  be  blockaded 
it  would  be  necessary  that  there  should  be  an  effective  force  before 
such  port ;  but,  instead  of  stipulating  that  this  force  must  consist  of 
stationary  and  sufficiently  nearby  vessels,  she  substituted  the  particle  or 
in  the  place  of  the  particle  ayid.  According  to  the  terms  of  this  treaty, 
in  order  to  effect  a  blockade,  she  was  not  compelled  to  maintain  station- 
ary vessels ;  it  sufficed  that  the  vessels  should  be  sufficiently  near  the 
place  she  desired  to  blockade. 

Denmark  acceded  to  the  Anglo-Russian  convention  on  October  23, 
1801,^  and  Sweden  on  March  30,  1802.^  This  convention  was  not  long 
observed.  Upon  the  protests  of  the  United  States,  the  English  Govern- 
ment does  indeed  in  1804  issue  to  her  maritime  commanders  and  to  the 
judges  of  her  vice  admiralty  courts  an  instruction  not  to  regard  the 
blockade  of  the  Erench  islands  of  the  West  Indies  as  in  existence, 
unless  with  regard  to  certain  ports  which  were  really  invested,  and 
hence  not  to  seize  vessels  sailing  to  these  ports  unless  previously  warned 
not  to  enter  therein. 

§  2Qi8. — But  in  other  regions,  England  continues  her  system  of  ficti- 
tious blockades.  An  order  of  the  British  Council  of  May  16,  1806,* 
declares  in  state  of  blockade  all  the  ports,  coasts,  and  rivers  from  the 
Elbe  to  Brest. 


VON  DOHM :  D enkzviirdigkeiten  meiner  Zeit;  oder,  Beitrdge  sur 
Geschichte  vom  lest  en  Viertel  des  achtsehnten  und  vom  An  fang 
des  neimsehnten  Jahrhunderts  ly/S  bis  i8o6.    Hanover,  1814—19. 

Christian  Konrad  Wilhelm  von  Dohm.  German  publicist  and  historical  writer ; 
born  in  1751;  died  in  1820.  He  entered  the  civil  service  of  Prussia  about  1778, 
became  privy  councillor  in  1783,  represented  Prussia  at  Cologne  from  1786  to 
1796,  and  was  employed  in  several  missions,  one  of  especial  interest  being  the 
Hildesheim    Congress    of    1796    to    carry    out    the    armed    neutrality    in    North 


^Post,  p.  595. 

^Post,  p.  606. 

^See  footnote,  ibid. 

^State  Papers,  vol.  1,  p.  1512;  Martens,  Nouveau  Recueil,  vol.  1,  p.  436. 


82  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Germany.  He  represented  Prussia  in  the  Congress  of  Rastadt  in  1797  and  in 
1807  entered  the  Council  of  State  of  Jerome  Bonaparte,  then  King  of  Westphalia. 
As  a  statesman  von  Dohm  was  distinguished  by  keenness  of  vision  and 
wealth  of  knowledge,  especially  in  the  field  of  the  complex  relations  of  the 
States  to  the  Empire.  He  was  an  indefatigable  worker  and  recognized  as  a 
powerful  orator.  His  diplomatic  work  and  his  writings  are  characterized  by 
truth  and  he  was  regarded  as  an  eminent  writer  by  his  contemporaries.  The 
above  work  is  perhaps  the  most  important  of  his  publications. 

Volume  2,  page  loo. — At  the  close  of  the  Seven  Years'  War,  the 
British  Government  considered  it  fair  that  to  redeem  the  debts  result- 
ing from  that  war  and  to  pay  the  great  taxes  which  were  necessarily 
incurred  in  consequence  of  it,  the  colonies  in  North  America  should 
make  a  proportionate  contribution.  It  found  this  course  the  more 
reasonable,  because  it  asserted  that  the  said  war  had  been  waged  more 
especially  in  the  interest  of  the  colonies  and  because  the  peace  which 
had  resulted  had  especially  founded  and  increased  their  security  and 
their  well-being.  The  colonists  did  not  deny  the  reasonableness  of 
the  demand,  but  they  maintained  that  by  transferring  their  homes 
across  the  seas,  their  forefathers  had  not  lost  their  rights  as  British 
citizens  and  the  most  important  of  these  rights  was  that  the  Britisher 
could  not  be  subjected  to  taxes  to  which  through  his  representatives 
he  had  not  given  his  approval.  Thus,  the  North  American  colonists 
were  ready  to  pay  taxes  if  they  were  granted  either  a  proportionate 
representation  in  the  British  Parliament,  or  a  parliament  of  their  own, 
as  in  the  case  of  Ireland.  The  Government  refused  this  request,  and 
rather  sought  otherwise  the  arbitrary  collection  of  taxes.  The  North 
Americans  offered  opposition ;  even  in  England  their  resistance  met 
with  approval.  Many  feared  that  the  intentions  of  the  court  would  be 
extended  farther  than  had  been  stated.  In  the  purposed  subjection 
of  North  Americans  to  laws  in  the  enactment  of  which  they  had  not 
cooperated  constitutionally,  they  saw  an  attempt  to  enlarge  the  royal 
powers,  an  attempt,  which,  if  it  were  successful,  might  some  day  even 
endanger  the  liberty  of  the  home  country.  But,  although  men  of 
foresight  advised  against  this  course,  although  even  the  great  Chat- 
ham warned  against  it  with  the  whole  force  of  his  eloquence,  the 
Ministry  resolved  to  repress  the  resistance  of  the  colonies  by  force. 
English   troops  and  troops   hired   from   some   German   princes^    were 


*0f  the  Landgrave  of  Hessen-Cassel,  of  the  Duke  of  Brunswick,  of  the  Mar- 
grave of  Anspach  and  of  the  Prince  of  Waldeck.  Moreover,  a  considerable 
number  of  Hanoverian  troops  were  taken  into  English  pay. 


VON  DOHM  83 

sent  across  the  seas,  but  they  were  not  numerous  enough  for  the  pur- 
pose, their  leadership  was  bad,  the  attempted  repression  miscarried, 
and  the  courage  of  the  Americans  was  increased  through  their  success. 
Soon  afterwards,  thirteen  colonies  formed  into  an  alliance,  and  sol- 
emnly and  forever  renounced  any  and  every  connection  with  the  home 
country  and  at  last  declared  themselves  independent  (July  4,  1776). 
They  continued  to  achieve  success  in  their  war  enterprises.  A  man 
of  distinguished  talents,  of  a  noble  and  resolute  character  and  of  true 
wisdom  was  guiding  them.     This  man  was  Washington. 

In  this  civil  strife,  France  did  not  behold  the  danger  of  an  exam- 
ple for  her  own  colonies,  but  merely  an  opportunity  to  revenge  her- 
self upon  the  rival  who  during  the  last  war  had  made  her  feel  his 
superiority  of  power,  and  had  wrung  from  her  a  very  disastrous  peace. 
France  assisted  the  rebellious  colonies  and  had  them  assisted  through 
her  subjects,  secretly  at  first  and  then  in  a  more  openhanded  way. 
The  American  congress  sent  deputies  to  the  French  Court ;  among 
these  was  Franklin,  an  old  man,  of  a  noble  simplicity  of  nature^  whose 
attainments  and  scientific  discoveries  had  already  won  for  him  great 
respect  in  both  parts  of  the  world.  This  man  contributed  much  to 
win  public  opinion  over  to  the  cause  of  North  America.  But  the 
deputies  demanded  even  stronger  assistance,  and  formal  recognition. 
The  hope  of  weakening  England's  sea  power  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  perhaps  even  more  the  fear  that  a  reconciliation  between  the 
motherland  and  the  colonies  might  lead  to  disastrous  consequences  for 
France,  determined  the  decisions  of  the  Cabinet  at  Versailles.^  Louis 
XVI  surrendered  the  dictates  of  his  common  sense  and  his  feeling 
for  that  which  was  right,  to  the  presumed  requirements  of  statesman- 
ship and  of  the  opinion  of  his  advisers ;  he  recognized  formally  the 
independence  of  North  America ;  and  on  February  6,  1778,  he  con- 
cluded with  the  colonies  a  treaty  of  commerce  and  of  friendship. 
This  action  meant  war  against  England ;  but  France  would  not  have  it 
elsewhere  looked  upon  as  a  declaration  of  war.     Both  Powers  avoided 


^Benjamin  Franklin,  born  in  Boston,  New  England,  1706,  was  seventy-one 
years  old,  when  he  started  upon  this  important  mission. 

2In  England,  even  in  the  English  Parliament,  it  was  openly  proposed  to  grant 
the  demands  of  the  colonies,  and  then  with  united  forces,  to  attack  France 
which  was  fanning  the  flame  of  inner  discord  and  inciting  to  the  destruction 
of  the  two  parties  engaged.  The  American  deputies  also  stated  in  Paris  that 
if  the  French  Court  were  late  in  giving  the  sought  recognition  and  powerful 
support,  there  would  undoubtedly  be  a  reconciliation  with  the  motherland,  no 
matter  upon  what  conditions. 


84  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  expression :  Each  desired  to  be  looked  upon  as  the  party 
attacked  and  thereby  ensure  to  itself  the  advantages  which  in  such 
case  were  deifined  in  treaties  existing  between  it  and  other  States. 
In  the  meantime,  actual  war  on  the  seas  between  France  and  England 
had  broken  out  (June,  1778).  Even  Spain,  however  much  she  must 
have  cared  not  to  favor  the  example  of  a  successful  rebellion  on  the 
part  of  the  colonies,  took  sides  with  France  as  the  latter's  ally  (June 
16,  1779).  England  had  no  allies.  In  consideration  of  older  trea- 
ties, England  asked  for  assistance  from  Holland.  But  Holland  de- 
nied that  those  treaties  were  applicable  to  the  case.  England  accused 
Holland  even  of  secretly  favoring  her  adversaries,  and  finally  declared 
war  against  the  Netherlands  (December  20,  1780). 

From  no  Power  could  England  have  received  greater  assistance 
than  from  Russia.  It  was  well  known  that  Catherine  II  cherished 
deep  predilection  for  the  English  nation,  and  that  she  harbored  a 
decided  dislike  for  France.  Any  rebellion  of  subjects  against  their 
lawful  Government  was  most  offensive  to  her.  A  swift  and  forcible 
repression  of  such  conduct  seemed  to  her  the  common  duty  of  all 
regents.  Upon  these  circumstances  there  was  based  the  hope  that  it 
might  be  possible  to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  the  Empress 
through  which  she  might  obligate  herself  to  give  assistance.  The 
negotiations  for  such  a  treaty^  were  entrusted  to  the  British  Ambas- 
sador at  Petersburg,  Sir  Harris  (subsequently  Lord  Malmesbury). 
This  difficult  transaction  was  worthy  of  a  statesman  combining  great 

ipor  the  details  of  the  negotiations  here  referred  to  we  are  indebted  to  the 
trustworthy  accounts  of  Count  von  Goertz,  who  at  the  time  these  negotiations 
were  being  conducted,  was  Prussian  Ambassador  at  Petersburg  and  enjoyed  the 
special  confidence  of  Count  Panin.  The  work  of  this  statesman  appeared  for 
the  first  time  in  1797  in  London,  in  an  English  translation  of  the  French  manu- 
script which  had  not  yet  been  put  in  print,  and  its  author  was  not  named,  but 
in  the  title  of  the  work  was  merely  referred  to  as  a  German  nobleman.  Subse- 
quently it  was  brought  out  in  its  original  text,  at  Basel,  1801,  under  the  title: 
^fcmoire  ou  precis  historiquc  sur  la  neutralite  armee  et  son  origine,  par  le 
Comte  Etistache  de  Goertz.  Apart  from  this  reliable  source  I  have  made  use 
of  other  printed  information  and  of  manuscripts  that  were  accessible  to  me. 
Tlie  most  important  among  the  printed  sources  are  those  which  Mr.  von 
Albcdyhll  at  the  time  of  the  negotiations  the  Swedish  Secretary  of  Embassy  at 
the  Petersburg  Court  embodied  in  the  Recueil  de  memoircs  et  pieces  relatives  aux 
affaires  du  Nord  de  I'Europe  pendant  la  dernicre  partie  dti  XVIIIme  siecle, 
Stockholm,  1798,  and  those  of  a  Danish  merchant,  Mr.  von  Eggers,  published  in 
Dcnkwiirdigkeitcn  dcs  danischcn  Staatsministers  Grafen  z'on  Bernstorf,  Copen- 
hagen, 1800.  These  two  well-known  men  confirmed  the  truth  of  the  von  Goertz 
reports,  but  added  a  few  appropriate  explanatory  passages  in  reference  to  Sweden 
and  Denmark;  the  biography  by  von  Eggers  especially  contains  many  remarkable 
documents. 


VON  DOHM  83 

talents  with  broad  knowledge  and  uncommon  energy.^  He  realized 
indeed  that  he  would  be  unable  to  secure  the  approval  of  the  first 
Russian  Minister  of  State,  Count  Panin,  the  Imperial  Chancellor. 
Count  Panin  was  well  aware  of  the  great  exhaustion  which  had  re- 
sulted from  Russia's  war  with  the  Ottoman  Porte ;  he  was  also  aware 
of  the  disordered  state  of  the  finances  and  did  not  regard  it  as  advis- 
able, for  the  sake  of  foreign  affairs,  to  inveigle  the  Russian  realm 
into  a  war  which  was  to  be  waged  in  another  part  of  the  world,  and 
which,  even  if  successful,  would  cost  many  lives  and  have  for  its 
immediate  consequence  the  loss  of  the  extremely  advantageous  outlet 
for  Russian  products  during  the  maritime  war.  These  reflections 
were  correct  and  represented  by  a  statesman  whose  influence,  it  is 
true,  had  been  impaired,  but  whose  opinion  was  nevertheless  of  great 
importance ;  and  this  influence  and  these  opinions  were  to  be  the 
decisive  factors  in  the  resolve  of  Catherine  II.  With  all  her  pre- 
dilection for  England,  the  Empress  could  not  but  realize  that  a  par- 
ticipation in  the  maritime  war  would  lead  to  manifold  complications 
and  deprive  her  of  the  free  and  independent  situation  in  which  she 
found  herself,  and.  in  addition,  might  therefore  prove  an  obstacle  to 
the  execution  of  the  great  plan  which  lay  closest  to  her  heart. 

Convinced  that  the  Empress  and  her  advisers  would  take  this  view 
of  matters,  Harris  therefore  resolved  to  attain  indirectly  that  which 
he  could  not  secure  through  direct  negotiations.  He  wanted  to  win 
over  to  his  side  Potemkin,  whose  influence  was  greatest  at  the  time, 
and  through  him  secure  the  alliance  with  his  homeland,  and  he  w-as 
willing  to  resort  to  any  and  all  means  that  would  meet  the  well-known 
inclinations   of   that    powerful    favorite.-      Through   him   he   had   the 

ijames  Harris,  born  in  1746,  entered  the  diplomatic  service  early  in  his  life; 
in  1772  he  became  English  Ambassador  at  Berlin,  and  in  1775  at  St.  Petersburg. 
Subsequently  he  was  sent  to  Holland  as  ambassador,  and  the  services  which  he 
rendered  during  the  revolution  of  this  land  in  1787,  brought  about  his  eleva- 
tion to  the  dignity  of  a  lordship.  Still  later,  in  his  efforts  to  secure  peace 
between  his  homeland  and  France,  he  went  to  Paris  in  1796  and  to  Lille  in 
1797.  Although  his  efforts  remained  fruitless,  yet  justice  has  always  been 
shown  him  for  his  proven  skill,  and  I  have  heard  the  French  envoys  who 
negotiated  with  Harris  speak  of  the  latter  with  great  respect.  He  was  indis- 
putably one  of  the  most  farsighted  British   statesmen  of  his  time. 

-It  has  been  stated  that  large  sums  have  been  used  to  that  end ;  here  is  a 
short  account  of  this  matter.  The  Ambassador  of  one  of  the  Governments 
interested  in  the  matter  told  Count  Panin,  in  a  confidential  conversation,  that 
Potemkin  had  been  won  over  to  the  side  of  England,  and  he  added  that  it  was 
rpported  that  he  had  received  50,000  rubles  from  the  English  Court.  Panin 
contradicted  the  truth  of  the  rumor,  and  with  a  smile  he  added :  Potemkin  is 
not  the  kind  of  man  who  can  be  bought  for  such  an  amount.     The  Ambassador 


86  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

desire  of  his  Government  laid  before  the  Empress  and  had  endeav- 
ored to  secure  favor  for  it  by  expressing  the  hope  that  England  would 
give  powerful  support  to  the  favorite  plan  of  the  Empress,  that  is  to 
say,  to  drive  the  Turks  out  of  Europe.  The  proposition  met  with 
success;  and  without  the  knowledge  of  Panin,  Harris  had  two  secret 
audiences  with  the  Empress.  The  Empress  listened  to  him  approv- 
ingly and  gave  him  permission  to  procure  authorization  from  his 
Court,  first  to  bring  about  the  termination  of  the  war  through  the 
medium  of  Russia,  and  if  this  plan,  as  was  thought  likely,  should  be 
declined  by  the  belligerents,  to  ofifer  to  conclude  an  alliance  with  Eng- 
land, with  the  express  stipulation,  that  it  should  be  enforceable  both  in 
the  war  then  being  waged,  and  in  any  future  war  of  Russia,  espe- 
cially with  the  Ottoman  Porte.  Harris  was  soon  able  to  present  this 
proposition  upon  which  he  and  the  Empress  had  agreed ;  but  now  came 
the  turn  of  the  Imperial  Chancellor  to  approve  of  this  proposition 
and  to  suggest  the  kind  of  answer  to  be  made  thereto.  This  was 
where  the  superior  weight  of  the  statesman  became  evident,  the  states- 
man who  understands  the  interconnection  of  affairs  and  who  presides 
over  their  direction ;  he  showed  his  superiority  over  the  influence 
which  comes  only  from  personal  favor.  On  grounds  of  the  true  in- 
terests of  the  Russian  realm,  Panin  demonstrated  to  the  Empress  that 
under  the  circumstances  then  prevailing,  no  alliance  with  England 
could  be  concluded.  The  Empress  was  convinced,  and  with  her  ap- 
proval, Panin  stated  to  the  English  Ambassador :  "That  though  ani- 
mated by  friendly  sentiments  for  England,  now  that  the  latter  was 
actually  at  war  with  several  Powers,  the  moment  was  not  appropriate 
to  enter  into  an  alliance  with  England.  Russia  desired  the  reestab- 
lishment  of  peace ;  her  threatened  participation  in  the  war  would 
have  for  immediate  consequence  a  wider  area  of  the  field  of  oper- 
ations and  a  prolongation  of  the  war  itself."  Harris  was  downcast 
when  he  received  this  ministerial  declaration ;  but  in  secret  he  received, 
it  has  been  said,  both  from  Potemkin  and  from  Catherine,  the  assur- 
ance that  the  sentiments  of  the  latter  were  still  the  same,  and,  while 
for  the  present  the  reasons  of  the  Imperial  Chancellor  could  not  have 
been  countered,  still  she  hoped  that  circumstances  would  soon  permit 
her  to  act  in  accordance  with  those  sentiments.  It  seemed  indeed 
that  this  was  soon  to  have  been  realized.     In  November,   1779,  two 


came  to  understand  the  meaning  of  that  wliich  the  Minister  had  implied  only 
when  upon  further  investigation  he  learned  that  Potemkin  had  not  received 
50,000  rubles  but  50,000  pounds  sterling. 


VON  DOHM  87 

Russian  ships  with  cargoes  of  grains  destined  for  the  Mediterranean, 
were  seized  by  Spanish  privateers  who  maintained  that  the  real  des- 
tination of  these  ships  was  to  reprovision  the  Fortress  of  Gibraltar. 
The  Empress  felt  greatly  offended ;  she  asked  for  a  peremptory  satis- 
faction, and  in  case  this  was  refused,  she  was  resolved  to  attack  Spain, 
the  natural  consequence  of  which  would  be  her  participation  in  the 
war  and  the  conclusion  of  an  alliance  with  England.  This  view  she 
did  not  entrust  to  Count  Panin ;  furthermore,  without  taking  counsel 
with  him,  she  gave  orders  to  outfit  in  Kronstadt  a  fleet  of  fifteen  line- 
ships  and  six  frigates  which,  as  soon  as  an  unsatisfactory  answer 
should  be  received  from  the  Spanish  Court,  would  unite  with  the  Eng- 
lish fleet.  This  intention  she  communicated  in  secret  to  the  British 
Ambassador  who  notified  to  his  Court  this  happy  result  of  his  nego- 
tiations. Potemkin  was  already  rejoicing  about  his  triumph  over  the 
Imperial  Chancellor.  In  the  meantime  the  outfitting  of  the  fleet  in 
Kronstadt  could  not  long  remain  a  secret.  He  divined  its  purpose, 
resolved  to  thwart  it,  and  now  he  evinced  the  talents  of  the  clever 
business  man  who,  though  the  Empress  was  well-informed  of  the 
circumstances,  and  extremely  bent  upon  self-government,  succeeded 
nevertheless  in  getting  her  to  do  otherwise  than  she  had  planned. 
Without  contradicting  her  in  the  slightest  way,  Panin  apparently 
shared  the  sentiments  of  the  Empress  against  Spain,  approving 
heartily  her  intention  to  secure  proper  satisfaction  for  the  interrupted 
free  traffic  of  her  subjects  and  for  the  offense  against  her  flag.  While 
he  engaged  the  Empress  in  this  purpose,  he  merely  added  that  it 
would  be  even  more  in  accordance  with  her  dignity  and  sovereignty 
if  she  were  not  satisfied  to  call  for  satisfaction  in  this  particular  case, 
but  to  avail  herself  of  this  opportunity  solemnly  to  declare  before  all 
Europe  that  the  Erripress  would  not  permit  the  free  traffic  of  her  sub- 
jects with  all  lands  and  upon  all  seas  to  be  disturbed  through  a  war 
of  other  Powers  and  in  which  Russia  did  not  participate ;  on  the  con- 
trary, that  she  would  demand  this  free  traffic  in  the  widest  interpreta- 
tion of  that  word  for  her  subjects,  and  that  she  would  consent  to  no 
limitations  thereof  except  such  as  are  established  by  treaties  between 
Russia  and  other  Powers,  or  where  such  treaties  were  wanting,  then 
as  might  be  recognized  through  the  general  opinion  of  the  peoples. 
That  there  might  be  no  doubt  as  to  this  general  opinion  of  the  peo- 
ples, Panin  proposed  to  establish  the  principles  with  a  just  impar- 
tiality and  which  the  Empress  would  wish   to   see   followed.     Panin 


88  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

remarked  that  if  she  gave  the  assurance  that  the  definite  limitations 
of  neutral  traffic  should  in  accordance  with  these  principles  be  rigidly 
observed  by  her  subjects,  that  none  of  the  belligerent  Powers  should 
be  favored  by  them,  that  on  the  contrary  they  should  strictly  observe 
neutrality  toward  all,  she  would  on  the  other  hand  be  justified  in 
demanding  that  the  free  commerce  of  her  subjects,  with  these  limita- 
tions, should  be  interfered  with  by  no  one,  and  she  might  fittingly 
declare  it  to  be  her  resolve  to  regard  any  attempted  interference  with 
the  free  commerce  of  her  subjects  as  an  act  of  hostility  against  her 
realm  and  to  avenge  it. 

Panin  further  remarked  that  principles  of  such  evident  justice 
would  meet  with  general  approval.  For  a  long  time  the  practice  of 
such  principles  had  been  the  innermost  desire  of  the  peoples,  and  it 
had  hitherto  not  been  possible  to  carry  them  out  merely  because 
might  had  not  been  combined  with  wisdom  and  love  of  mankind ;  now, 
however,  this  rare  combination  had  come  to  be  realized  in  the  Russian 
monarchy,  and  if  the  latter  were  to  invite  those  peoples  not  engaged 
in  the  war  to  accept  these  principles,  they  would  be  quite  ready  to 
do  so  and  enter  into  an  agreement  with  the  Empress  for  the  purpose 
of  demanding  their  recognition  and  observance,  with  a  common 
power,  from  the  belligerent  Powers,  which  in  the  end  forced  thereto 
by  their  own  interests,  could  not  refuse  to  accept  them.  Through 
the  realization  of  such  a  union  among  all  the  civilized  peoples.  Em- 
press Catherine  would  rise  to  an  entirely  new  and  distinguished  de- 
gree of  glory ;  she  would  become  the  lawgiver  of  the  oceans  upon 
which  there  should  be  given  security  to  ownership  and  freedom  of 
traffic  such  as  had  never  before  been  known.  The  Empress  would 
become  a  benefactress  not  only  to  her  realm  and  her  contemporaries, 
but  to  mankind,  by  setting  just  bounds  in  advance  to  the  atrocities 
in  the  wars  which  might  arise  in  future  centuries,  by  diminishing  the 
savagery  hitherto  manifest  in  wars  and  by  securing  general  observ- 
ance of  the  dictates  of  reason.  The  realization  of  these  principles 
would  secure  for  the  Empress  the  grateful  respect  of  all  peoples  and 
of  generations  to  follow. 

Representations  of  this  sort  had  their  eflFect  upon  Catherine's  ambi- 
tious spirit ;  fully  she  accepted  the  ideas  of  her  wise  Minister  and 
ordered  him  to  announce  to  the  belligerent  Powers  the  principles  she 
had  at  the  time  before  her,  as  the  principles  which  she  had  prescribed 
to  be  strictly  observed  by  her  subjects,  whose  recognition  she  wished 


VON  DOHM  89 

to  obtain  from  every  other  Power,  and  whose  violation  she  would 
avenge  as  an  act  of  hostility.  She  ordered  at  the  same  time  that  he 
invite  the  neutral  Powers  to  join  with  Russia  for  the  maintenance, 
with  their  united  strength,  of  these  principles.  Thus,  on  February 
28,  1780,  arose  the  famous  declaration  which  established  the  system 
of  the  armed  maritime  neutrality^  in  conformity  with  the  following 
principles : 

1.  Neutral  ships  may  sail  freely  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  engaged  in  war; 

2.  The  goods  of  the  subjects  of  the  belligerent  Powers  is  abso- 
lutely free  on  neutral  ships,  with  the  single  exception  of  articles 
defined  as  contraband ; 

3.  Contraband  goods  are  such  as  have  been  so  declared  in 
Article  10  and  in  Article  11  of  the  treaty  between  Russia  and 
England.^  The  Empress  extends  these  provisions  agreed  upon 
between  her  and  England,  to  all  the   other  belligerent   Powers ; 

4.  A  port  is  regarded  as  blockaded  only  when  by  the  disposi- 
tion and  nearness  of  ships  of  the  attacking  Power  it  is  so  sur- 
rounded as  to  make  entrance  into  it  clearly  dangerous.  Neutral 
ships  are  forbidden  to  enter  into  ports  of  that  description ; 

5.  The  lawfulness  of  the  seizure  of  neutral  ships  can  be  de- 
cided only  in  accordance  with  these  principles. 

As  shown  by  our  account  of  it,  this  declaration  does  not  owe  its 
origin  to  long  and  mature  reflection ;  it  does  not  rest  upon  a  noble 
and  far-seeing  statecraft  directed  to  the  realization  of  the  general 
welfare  of  mankind;  rather,  it  was  merely  the  work  of  the  skill  of 
the  statesman  who  imparted  a  different  direction  to  the  whim  of  his 
monarch  than  she  had  intended,  and  removed  an  embarrassment  into 
which  this  whim  had  threatened  to  lead  the  State.  Though  this 
origin  is  less  creditable  than  has  frequently  been  asserted,  yet  the 
achievement  of  Panin  who  conceived  it,  and  the  achievement  of  Cath- 


^Post,  p.  273.  All  political  documents  in  regard  to  the  armed  maritime  neu- 
trality are  gathered  in  Martens'  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vols.  2,  4,  and  also  in  my 
Materialien  fiir  die  neucre  Geschichte  und  Statistik,  p.  4,  and  even  more  fully 
in  V.  Hennings,  Saminlung  von  Staatsschriften  wdhrend  des  Seekriegs  von 
1776-1783,  Altona.  1784. 

^According  to  these  provisions,  only  weapons  and  real  necessaries  of  war  are 
defined  as  contraband.    See  post,  p.  343. 


90  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

erine  who  accepted  it,  are  not  for  that  reason  undeserving.  The 
glory  which  Catherine  II,  led  by  her  Minister,  acquired  in  this  matter, 
is  the  noblest  of  her  reign.  In  order  to  show  that  this  glory  really 
belongs  to  her,  I  shall  permit  myself  a  digression  which  dates  back  to 
a  somewhat  earlier  period. 

It  has  not  been  claimed  that  Panin  was  first  in  determining  the 
rights  of  neutrals.  Ever  since  maritime  wars  have  been  waged,  the 
nations  not  taking  part  therein  have  maintained  that  such  wars  could 
not  change  their  relations,  that  they  must  be  left  free  to  continue 
their  intercourse  wutli  any  belligerent  nation  as  in  time  of  peace.  The 
belligerents  were  not  willing  to  grant  this  claim ;  they  set  forth  two 
demands  which  were  absolutely  opposed  to  the  claims  of  the  neutrals. 
At  first,  the  belligerents  meant  to  seize  the  property  of  their  enemy  or 
of  his  subjects,  no  matter  where  it  might  be  found.  From  this  they 
derived  the  justification  to  stop  and  search  neutral  ships  wherever 
they  encountered  them  upon  the  open  seas,  which  belong  in  common 
to  all  the  peoples,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  carried  enemy 
property.  This  personal  search,  they  maintained,  was  absolutely  nec- 
essary, because  if  they  should  depend  in  this  respect  upon  the  assur- 
ance of  the  neutrals,  they  would  expose  themselves  to  the  danger  that 
the  latter's  ships  might  carry  necessaries  of  war,  and  even  troops  to 
the  enemy.  The  second  demand  was  to  the  effect  that  a  belligerent 
Power  was  justified  in  seizing  upon  the  open  seas  any  sort  of  weapons 
which  the  neutral  was  carrying  to  the  enemy.  Little  by  little  this 
was  extended  even  to  materials  that  might  be  worked  into  weapons 
or  used  for  war  purposes.  Nor  were  they  willing  to  concede  that 
ships,  or  materials  that  might  serve  for  the  construction  of  ships, 
should  be  carried  to  the  enemy ;  finally  they  would  not  permit  even 
necessaries  of  life  to  be  carried  to  the  enemy  on  board  neutral  ships, 
nor  permit  neutral  ships,  no  matter  what  their  cargoes,  to  enter  ports 
regarded  as  or  even  merely  declared  to  be  blockaded.  The  belliger- 
ents stated :  Anyone  who  aids  our  enemy  will  in  justice  be  treated 
by  us  as  an  enemy.  The  neutrals  regarded  all  this  as  an  unjust 
arrogation  of  right;  they  demanded  for  their  subjects  the  unlimited 
right  to  transport  merchandise  of  any  sort  to  any  foreign  land,  with- 
out any  regard  whatever  as  to  whether  or  not  such  land  was  at  war 
with  others,  or  what  use  the  purchasers  intended  to  or  might  make 
of  the  articles  carried  to  them.     These  contradictorv  demands  were 


VON  DOHM  91 

opposed  to  each  other  in  every  maritime  warfare.^  Whoever  pos- 
sessed the  greatest  power  made  use  of  it ;  if  a  belHgerent  Power  was 
in  need  of  war  necessaries,  or  materials  for  the  building  of  ships,  or 
of  food,  and  it  had  not  power  enough  to  protect  the  maritime  com- 
merce of  its  subjects  against  the  attacks  of  its  enemy,  it  welcomed 
the  importations  from  neutral  nations,  and  gladly  granted  rights  from 
the  application  of  which  it  had  itself  hoped  for  the  greatest  advan- 
tages. If  on  the  other  hand,  a  belligerent  Power  was  not  in  need  of 
foreign  importations,  at  least  not  in  the  proportion  of  its  opponent, 
and  felt  able  vigorously  to  protect  the  traffic  of  its  own  subjects  and 
to  interfere  with  the  commerce  of  the  subjects  of  the  enemy,  it  was 
in  such  case  unwilling  to  grant  to  neutrals  traffic  with  its  enemy,  it 
seized  enemy  property  even  on  neutral  ships,  and  in  every  importa- 
tion of  merchandise  destined  for  the  enemy  saw  an  assistance  fur- 
nished to  the  latter  which  would  justify  enemy  treatment. 

As  the  sovereignty  of  European  nations  came  to  extend  over  all 
parts  of  the  earth,  their  traffic  also  spread  over  all  the  seas ;  maritime 
wars  became  more  frequent,  and  conflicts  between  those  who  took 
part  in  such  wars  or  remained  neutral  while  they  were  being  waged 
likewise  increased.  But  it  was  proportionately  realized  that  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  both  parties,  belligerents  and  neutrais, 
should  yield  something  of  their  asserted  respective  rights.  An  effort 
was  made  to  reach  amicable  understandings  through  treaties,  in  order 
to  determine  how  much  each  of  the  parties  interested  should  yield  of 
its  rights.  The  neutrals  could  not  but  realize  that  not  to  become  par- 
tial toward  one  or  the  other  of  the  belligerents,  or  to  seem  to  be  so, 
they  could  not  absolutely  maintain  the  free  commerce  of  their  sub- 
jects. In  consequence,  they  obligated  themselves  not  to  furnish 
weapons  and  war  materials  to  a  belligerent  Power,  nor  to  supply  it 
with  ships  or  with  materials  employed  in  the  construction  of  ships, 
nor  to  carry  food  to  ports  really  blockaded.  In  their  turn,  the  bel- 
ligerents renounced  their  right  to  seize  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships, 
but  with  certain  exceptions  in  regard  to  which  they  came  to  an  agree- 

^Even  in  the  statements  of  one  and  the  same  Power  contradictions  were 
frequently  met  with.  A  certain  Power,  may  be,  when  neutral,  declared  the 
principles  of  a  belligerent  as  most  unjust  and  despotic,  while  when  itself  at 
war,  it  had  asserted  and  followed  the  same  principles.  Thus  while  taking  an 
active  part  in  maritime  wars,  Holland  restricted  the  rights  of  neutral  com- 
merce, which  rights,  since  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  while  she  was 
at  peace,   she  had  demanded  should  be  observed  by  all. 


92  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ment  between  themselves.  The  articles,  the  transportation  of  which 
to  the  belligerents  was  to  be  forbidden  to  the  neutrals,  were  called 
contraband,  and  the  various  treaties  contained  more  detailed  stipula- 
tions as  to  what  should  be  understood  by  contraband  and  what,  com- 
ing within  these  stipulations,  might  be  taken  away  from  neutral  ships. 
But  it  was  impossible  to  define  everything  so  exactly  as  was  demanded 
in  actual  practice.  There  are  so  many  things  which  may  be  used 
both  for  war  and  other  purposes,  or  which  in  the  first  place,  and 
through  multiple  treating,  could  be  fashioned  into  implements  of  war. 
Numberless  doubts  arose  in  regard  thereto ;  self-interest,  which  in 
such  circumstances  becomes  very  keen,  developed  ever  greater  doubts 
of  this  nature.  The  text  of  the  treaties  was  susceptible  of  different 
interpretations ;  the  belligerent  was  in  favor  of  extreme  restrictions, 
and  the  neutral  in  favor  of  all  possible  extension ;  each  found  his 
meaning  expressed  in  the  treaties,  and  superiority  of  power  could  not 
be  persuaded  to  yield  its  viewpoint.  In  this  way,  the  insistent  claims 
on  the  part  of  the  neutrals  were  brought  forth  in  every  maritime  war, 
and  just  as  insistent  complaints  were  entered  either  by  the  one  or  by 
the  other  of  the  belligerents,  and  frequently  by  both  at  the  same  time ; 
the  weaker  had  to  put  up  with  that  which  he  could  not  prevent. 
When  peace  was  reestablished,  the  injuries  sustained  during  the  war 
began  to  be  forgotten.  The  Powers  which  had  waged  the  war, 
promised  that  in  the  future  they  would  show  greater  respect  for  the 
rights  of  neutrals ;  the  latter  promised  not  to  attempt  further  to  in- 
crease those  rights ;  in  new  treaties,  agreements  were  come  to  with 
more  complete  and  exact  provisions.  These  promises  and  these  trea- 
ties were  lived  up  to  as  long  as  there  was  peace,  that  is  to  say,  as 
long  as  there  was  no  reason  to  violate  them.  As  soon  as  a  new  mari- 
time war  broke  out,  might  made  its  superiority  again  felt,  and  the 
claims  of  the  belligerents  and  the  neutrals  came  once  more  into  con- 
flict.    The  mutual  claims  and  complaints  reappeared. 

For  a  long  time  the  vexatious  side  of  this  unstable  condition  had 
been  felt.  All  European  nations  carrying  their  commerce  over  the 
seas,  even  nations  which  could  not  themselves  carry  on  such  com- 
merce, but  which  were  interested  in  such  traffic  on  account  of  the 
exportation  of  their  products  and  their  importation  from  abroad  of 
articles  they  stood  in  need  of,  were  loud  in  their  complaints  with  re- 
gard to  the  violent  interference  with  their  activities  and  the  seizure  of 
property  which  befell  them  in  every  war  between  maritime  Powers, 


VON  DOHM  93 

although  their  own  Government  had  no  part  in  it.  Most  of  these 
complaints  were  directed  against  England,  not  because  the  British 
Government  acted  upon  more  unjust  principles  than  any  other  Gov- 
ernment, but  because  the  numerous  war  fleets  and  the  many  corsairs 
which  it  was  able  to  outfit,  placed  it,  better  than  any  other  Govern- 
ment, in  position  to  enforce  the  principles  asserted  in  common  by  all 
the  belligerents.^  Every  neutral  Government,  endeavored,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  protect  itself  against  such  acts  of  violence  and  to  uphold 
the  rights  of  free  commerce.  These  endeavors  were  successful  in 
some  cases  while  in  others  they  met  with  failure.  A  single  neutral 
Power  was  not  by  itself  alone  able  to  carry  out  its  principles  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  if  it  would  avoid  being  drawn  into  the  war.  Only  a  union 
of  several  neutral  States  could  secure  respect  from  the  belligerents. 
As  a  rule,  however,  the  neutrals  were  not  agreed  as  to  the  extent  to 
which  free  traffic  should  be  insisted  upon,  nor  with  regard  to  the 
limitations  of  such  free  traffic  which  they  were  willing  to  accept,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  partiality.  It  is  a  fact  that  very 
frequently  some  of  these  neutrals  were  not  free  from  such  partiality 
toward  either  one  or  another  of  the  belligerent  parties,  and  generally 
jealousy  crept  in  among  them  because  each  desired  for  itself  the 
greater  part  of  maritime  commerce. 

To  overcome  these  difficulties  and  to  establish  precisely  the  princi- 
ples that  should  prevail  in  all  maritime  wars,  and  finally  to  bring  about 
a  union  of  all  European  neutral  Powers  for  the  enforcement  of  these 
principles — all  this  forms  the  centrum  of  the  idea  which  Panin  pro- 
posed to  his  Empress  who  resolved  to  carry  it  out  in  all  points.  The 
basis  of  this  proposition  was  not  an  imitation  of  that  which  had 
already  taken  place  in  former  times ;  no  other  Government  had  ever 

^Impartiality  demands  the  following  explanation.  The  procedure  of  English 
courts  against  captured  neutral  ships  and  goods  was  harsh  and  oppressive,  but 
not  any  more  unjust  than  that  of  other  belligerent  Powers.  During  the  Ameri- 
can maritime  war,  the  rights  of  the  neutral  commerce  of  France  and  of  Spain 
were  in  fact  violated  even  as  mercilessly,  but  not  as  frequently,  as  those  of 
England.  And  as  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  point  out,  it  was  not  an 
English,  but  a  Spanish  violation  of  neutrality  which  led  to  Panin's  idea.  In 
the  seventh  note  to  the  collection  of  official  documents  by  v.  Hennings  (see 
vol.  1,  p.  56),  already  referred  to,  it  is  stated  that  in  its  regulations  dealing 
with  privateering,  England  generally  and  exactly  observed  the  treaties  concluded 
with  neutral  Powers  and  that  she  took  care  to  distinguish  between  the  different 
cases  that  arose,  while  France,  at  the  beginning  of  the  American  war,  issued  a 
regulation,  which  was  in  violation  of  the  many  and  important  provisions  of 
her  commercial  treaty  with  Denmark. 


94  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

before  conceived  of  this  idea  to  the  extent  proposed  by  Panin,  nor 
had  any  other  Government  commissioned  this  Minister  to  set  forth 
the  proposal.  It  may  be  definitively  and  reliably  asserted,  that,  con- 
trary to  what  has  been  stated  in  regard  to  this  question,^  it  was  not 
Frederick  II  who  had  done  so,  although  long  before  the  time  Panin's 
plan  was  formulated,  this  monarch  had  emphatically  demanded  the 
return  of  property  of  his  subjects  captured  by  English  corsairs,  and 
through  skilled  use  of  circumstances,  had  secured  actual  indemnifica- 
tion for  these  citizens.-  Nor  did  Denmark  and  Sweden  suggest  the 
idea  to  Panin,  although  it  is  an  established  fact  that  as  early  as  1778, 
Count  von  BernstorflF,  the  Danish  Minister  of  State,  had  proposed  to 
the  Swedish  King,  Gustavus  III,  a  common  defense  of  free  maritime 
commerce,  and  although  both  Powers  had  presented  this  suggestion 
to  the  Russian  Empress.  But  the  latter  declined  at  the  time  to  com- 
mit herself,  both  because  of  her  partiality  to  England  and  because 
the  need  for  such  an  alliance  was  not  profoundly  felt  in  Russia,  since 

^Herzberg  has  frequently  so  stated,  but  erroneously,  because  he  had  no  clear 
idea  of  the  difference  between  the  rights  always  insisted  upon  by  the  neutral 
Powers  in  regard  to  the  free  commerce  during  the  maritime  war,  and  the 
peculiar  merit  of  Panin's  plan  which  gave  precise  definition  of  these  rights  and 
brought  about  a  union  between  all  the  neutral  peoples  in  defense  of  these  rights. 
Frederick  has  no  need  of  laying  claim  to  a  glory  which  does  not  belong  to  him. 

-During  the  maritime  war  which  was  being  waged  in  the  fifties  of  the  pre- 
ceding century,  several  Prussian  ships  or  goods  of  Prussian  subjects  on  board 
of  French  and  Spanish  ships  had  been  seized  by  English  corsairs,  and  these 
captures  had  been  upheld  by  English  courts.  Frederick  demanded  satisfaction 
for  these  acts,  and  when  this  satisfaction  had  been  invariably  refused,  he 
organized  a  tribunal  in  BerHn,  before  which  his  subjects  were  ordered  to  pre- 
sent their  claims  and  to  prove  them  legally.  Experts  appointed  by  the  King 
defended  the  action  of  England.  The  tribunal  bidden  to  exercise  the  strictest 
impartiality  decided  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  nations  accepted  in  treaties 
or  through  general  public  opinion,  and  to  those  plaintiffs  to  whom  indemnifica- 
tion was  awarded,  the  King  had  such  indemnification  paid  out  of  the  moneys 
which  English  subjects  had  formerly  lent  to  Austria  for  the  account  of  Silesia, 
and  whose  settlement  Frederick  had  taken  upon  himself  in  the  Breslau  and 
Dresden  peace.  In  the  subsequent  treaty  of  alliance  of  1756,  England  approved 
of  this  procedure  and  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  Prussian  subjects  who  had  sus- 
tained losses,  she  paid  the  sum  of  20,000  pounds  sterling.  At  the  time  of  this 
dispute  V.  Herzberg,  who  was  employed  in  the  department  of  foreign  affairs, 
wrote  a  deduction  which  was  sent  to  London  in  1747.  This  document  is  not 
included  in  v.  Herzberg's  political  writings,  but  it  is  found  in  von  Martens' 
F.rz'dhhmgen  merkwurdiger  Fdlle  des  neuern  Volkerrechts,  Gottingen,  1800,  vol. 
1,  p.  240.  I  can  not  explain  why  Herzberg  did  not  include  this  document  in 
his  collection,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  attached  great  value  thereto,  and, 
though  erroneously,  he  maintained,  that  he  had  been  through  this  instrument 
the  first  defender  of  the  principles  of  neutrality.  See  his  Recueil,  volume  1, 
p.  464.  It  certainly  has  had  no  influence  upon  the  resolve  of  Panin  who,  in  all 
probability,  had  no  knowledge  of  it,  because  at  the  time  it  had  not  been  printed. 


VON  DOHM  95 

the  Russians  had  hardly  any  active  commerce  outside  of  the  Baltic 
Sea  such  as  the  Swedes  and  Danes  had.  It  was  for  these  reasons 
that  at  the  time  Catherine  II  would  consent  only  to  give  measures  for 
the  protection  of  commerce  along  the  coasts,  and  nothing  definite  was 
even  agreed  upon  in  respect  of  this. 

It  was  not  until  the  opportunity  presented  itself  to  impart  a  benefi- 
cent orientation  to  the  ambition  of  the  Empress  and  thus  to  induce  her 
to  take  part  in  the  maritime  war,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  just 
then  there  had  not  occurred  an  English  violation  of  the  commerce  of 
Russian  subjects  which  might  have  led  to  the  resolve  of  joining  in 
the  maritime  war.  that  Panin  thought  the  time  had  come  to  lay  his 
great  idea  before  the  Empress  with  the  hope  of  securing  her  approval 
of  it.  It  may  well  be  that  the  earlier  proposition  of  Denmark  and 
Sweden  may  have  been  in  Panin's  mind  and  that  his  courage  was 
strengthened  through  the  hope  of  the  acceptance  of  his  idea  by  these 
Powers,  but  that  earlier  proposal  had  no  immediate  eflFect  upon  him. 
Panin's  proposition  was  the  work  of  the  instant,  in  order  to  escape 
an  embarrassing  situation  into  which  Catherine's  predilection  for 
England  threatened  to  rush  the  Russian  realm.  That  this  embarrass- 
ing situation  led  the  Russian  Imperial  Chancellor  to  the  conception  of 
such  a  happy  and  beneficent  plan  must  be  accounted  the  merit  of  his 
own  genius  and  of  his  patriotism  which  sought  the  true  well-being  of 
the  realm  and  the  glory  of  his  monarch ;  this  is  a  merit  in  which  no 
other  Court  has  had  a  part. 

The  declaration  of  the  Empress  was  forwarded  to  the  Courts  of 
London,  Paris  and  Madrid.  The  monarch  herself  had  no  idea  what- 
ever of  the  great  consequences  and  of  the  impression  that  her  declara- 
tion would  have.  Catherine  had  really  no  clear  conception  (a  matter 
which  seems  extremely  strange)  of  the  real  conditions  of  the  powers 
that  were  at  work  in  the  world,  for  while  she  initiated  a  movement 
which  was  to  bring  great  glory  to  her,  she  flattered  herself  at  the 
same  time  at  being  thus  able  to  satisfy  her  passionate  predilection  for 
England.  Since  the  last  violation  of  the  commerce  of  her  subjects 
had  been  committed  by  Spain,  she  really  hoped  that  the  immediate 
consequence  of  her  declaration  would  be  a  satisfaction  which  she 
would  secure  from  this  Power  by  sending  out  the  fleet  she  had  or- 
dered to  be  held  ready.  Panin  did  not  undeceive  his  monarch  in  this 
illusion  in  order  that  the  work  in  which  he  had  hitherto  engaged  and 
had  turned  out  so  successfully  might  not  be  destroyed  before  its  final 


96  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

consummation,  and  therefore  he  requested  her  to  inform  no  one  ot 
the  contents  of  the  declaration  which  she  had  approved  until  after  the 
couriers,  bearing  copies  of  the  declaration,  had  started  on  their  way 
to  the  different  Courts.  The  Empress  promised  to  do  so  and  she 
kept  her  word.  But  she  could  not  restrain  herself  from  imparting 
confidentially  to  the  English  Ambassador,  that  in  the  immediate  future 
a  declaration,  in  her  name,  was  to  be  sent  to  the  belligerent  Courts  by 
which  England  would  find  all  her  wishes  fulfilled.  She  permitted  him 
even  provisionally  to  communicate  this  agreeable  piece  of  news  to 
his  Court.  Greatly  elated  Harris  did  not  delay  in  following  up  the 
hint  that  had  been  given  him,  and  London  looked  expectantly  to  the 
receiving  of  the  declaration  which  was  to  bring  assurance  of  the 
mighty  assistance  which  had  been  so  long  desired,  by  which  the  British 
Ministry  hoped  to  put  an  end  to  the  rebellion  beyond  the  seas  and  to 
secure  revenge  from  the  Bourbons.  Great  however  was  the  surprise 
of  Harris  when  a  few  days  later  he  was  informed  of  the  contents  of 
the  declaration  which,  in  absolute  opposition  to  the  hopes  that  had 
been  conveyed  to  him  by  the  Empress,  set  forth  in  the  most  vigorous 
terms  the  upholding  of  the  rights  of  neutral  commerce  whose  recog- 
nition had  been  so  decidedly  denied  by  England.  This  declaration 
proved  only  to  the  advantage  of  the  adversaries  of  Great  Britain, 
since  in  accordance  with  its  provisions.  Great  Britain's  adversaries 
could  be  supplied  with  all  necessaries  for  the  construction  of  ships 
through  the  ships  of  the  northern  Powers,  and  free  exportation  was 
at  the  same  time  assured  to  French  and  Spanish  products  on  these 
same  neutral  ships.  Harris  could  not  but  feel  that  his  Court  would 
hold  him  guilty  of  inexcusable  neglect.  The  object  of  all  his  en- 
deavors— an  alliance  with  Russia — had  suddenly  come  to  naught  and 
he  must  have  felt  that  the  righteous  indignation  of  his  Court  would 
manifest  itself  so  vigorously  that  it  could  not  but  lead  to  a  rupture 
between  the  two  countries.  Simolin,  the  Russian  Ambassador  at 
London,  was  unable  to  describe  satisfactorily  the  unpleasant  impres- 
sion caused  by  the  unexpected  declaration  which  he  had  handed  to 
the  English  Court.  The  British  Ministers  complained  to  him  and 
everywhere  else,  most  bitterly,  with  regard  to  the  Russian  Court 
which,  after  having  hypocritically,  and  for  a  long  time,  signified  its 
friendly  intentions,  had  now  embarked  upon  a  course  directed  solely 
against  the  interests  of  England,  a  course  which  seemed  evidently  to 


VON  DOHM  97 

have  been  inspired  by  the  latter's  adversaries.^  Prince  Potemkin 
endeavored  to  reassure  the  British  Ambassador  by  telling  him  straight- 
forwardly that  the  Empress  had  deceived  him  only  because  she  her- 
self had  been  first  deceived  by  her  Imperial  Chancellor,  by  her  not 
realizing  how  this  declaration  which  she  had  been  persuaded  to  send 
forth  was  absolutely  contrary  to  her  friendly  dispositions  for  Eng- 
land. In  vain  he  endeavored  to  convince  him  that  if  the  English 
Ministry  would  but  control  its  dissatisfaction,  the  Empress  would 
surely  find  the  means  to  destroy  the  eflfects  of  her  declaration  and  to 
give  quite  a  different  turn  to  things.  It  was  difficult  to  convince  Har- 
ris ;  and  to  judge  from  what  had  happened,  this  Minister  could 
naturally  not  hope  to  infuse  belief  in  his  Court  for  his  assurances  of 
the  Empress'  friendly  dispositions.  All  he  was  able  to  accomplish 
was  that  the  English  Court  did  not  indulge  in  bitter  reproaches ;  the 
King  of  England  contented  himself  with  replying  to  the  declaration 
of  the  Empress  with  the  cold  assurance  that  he  should  conform  to  his 
treaties  with  Russia,  and  that  in  their  enforcement  Russian  subjects 
would  find  no  reason  for  complaint.  On  the  other  hand  satisfaction 
was  felt  at  the  Bourbon  Court  over  Catherine's  declaration.  In  terms 
most  flattering  the  Kings  of  France  and  of  Spain  assured  the  Empress 
that  the  principles  which  had  now  been  established,  were  exactly  those 
whose  application  they  had  always  demanded  for  their  own  subjects, 
and  whose  strict  observance  they  had  long  since  prescribed  toward  all 
neutrals.  They  stated  that  England  alone  refused  to  recognize  these 
principles  and  that  her  refusal  had  been  the  cause  of  the  war  then 
being  waged.  Both  Kings  praised  the  resolve  of  the  Empress  who 
had  called  for  a  common  defense  of  the  most  natural  rights  of  all 
peoples.  They  gave  her  the  most  certain  assurance  that  Russian  sub- 
jects would  never  have  cause  to  complain  of  any  violation  whatever 
of  these  rights  on  their  part.  The  satisfaction  called  for  from  Spain 
was  satisfied  forthwith.  The  Empress  felt  deeply  flattered  by  the 
conduct  of  the  Courts  of  Versailles  and  Madrid.  In  spite  of  the 
efforts  of  Potemkin  to  counteract  what  had  been  accomplished  by  the 
issuance  of  the  declaration,  she  now  began  for  the  first  time  to  realize 


1  Attempts  have  been  made  to  show  that  Count  Vergennes  had,  tli rough  the 
medium  of  Sweden,  brought  to  Russia  the  idea  of  the  armed  maritime  neu- 
trality; there  is,  however,  no  substantial  basis  for  such  an  assertion.  Neither 
Gustavus  III,  nor  Panin,  were  in  need  of  instructions  from  abroad  with  regard 
to  the  advantages  of  the  free  commercial  traffic  of  neutral  nations,  and  the 
Russian  declaration  was  as  unexpected  at  the  French  Court  as  anywhere  else. 


98  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  wisdom  of  the  measures  which  Panin  had  suggested;  she  felt  that 
the  constant  maintenance  of  these  measures  would  meet  with  general 
approval  and  bring  to  her  true  and  everlasting  glory.  More  and 
more  she  became  convinced  of  the  justice  and  of  the  great  importance 
of  the  principles  established  by  her  and  because  she  realized  that  Eng- 
land's presumptions  would  ever  work  against  their  effectiveness  her 
predilection  for  England  decreased  considerably.  The  idea  of  an 
alliance  with  England  was  now  given  up  altogether. 

The  hope  of  establishing  the  free  intercourse  of  all  peoples  even 
during  war  times,  for  all  times  and  in  accordance  with  firm  and  im- 
mutable principles,  became  thenceforth  Catherine's  sole  preoccupa- 
tion; for  some  time  she  gave  as  much  attention  to  this  as  to  the  cre- 
ation of  an  oriental  empire.  She  was  now  all  desirous  to  bring  all 
neutral  maritime  Powers  formally  to  recognize  the  principles  estab- 
lished and  to  promise  to  defend  them  in  common.  She  had  the  satis- 
faction of  seeing  that  her  proposals  were  willingly  met.  No  one  of 
the  sovereigns  did  perhaps  show  more  zeal  than  Gustavus  III,  King 
of  Sweden.^  With  great  power  of  foresight,  this  monarch  combined 
a  sturdy  desire  to  advance  the  welfare  of  his  subjects  in  every  possible 
manner.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  maritime  war  being  waged  at 
the  time,  he  had  very  much  desired  to  procure  for  his  subjects  all  the 
advantages  of  neutral  commerce,  and  he  had  most  unwillingly  borne 
the  interference  for  which  England  especially  was  responsible.  He 
had  fitted  out  some  war-ships  for  the  protection  of  Swedish  com- 
merce, and  invited  Denmark  and  Russia  to  enter  into  a  union  with 
him  that  might  be  profitable  alike  to  all  three ;  but  as  has  already  been 
noted,  Russia  could  not  before  that  time  be  persuaded  to  join  such  a 
union.  Now,  however,  Gustavus  eagerly  availed  himself  of  the 
favorable  disposition  of  the  Empress.  On  July  21,  1780,  he  informed 
the  belligerent  Powers  that  the  principles  established  by  Russia  met 
with  his  entire  approval,  that  he  had  prescribed  a  strict  observance  of 
them  by  his  subjects  and  that  he  was  furthermore  resolved,  in  union 
with  Russia,  and  in  accordance  with  those  principles,  to  protect  the 
free  traffic  of  his  subjects  against  every  and  all  Powers.  The  Rus- 
sian declaration  met  with  similar  approval  at  the  Danish  Court, 
although    England   set   everything   there    in    motion   to   prevent   Den- 


^He  was  the  nephew  of  Frederick  II,  born  in  1746;  he  abolished  in  1772  the 
limits  imposed  upon  sovereignty  since  the  death  of  Charles  XII ;  he  was 
assassinated    in    1792. 


GEFFCKEN  99 

mark's  accession  thereto,  and  consented  even  to  less  rigorous  provi- 
sions as  to  that  which,  according  to  older  treaties  between  the  two 
countries,  was  defined  as  contraband.  Count  Bernstorff,^  who  in 
those  days  directed  the  political  afifairs  of  Denmark,  was  very  friendly 
to  the  English  Court,  and  unwillingly  engaged  in  acts  that  were  un- 
pleasant to  that  Court;  but  the  justice  and  the  welfare  of  the  State,  in 
the  judgment  of  this  clear-seeing  statesman,  outweighed  every  other 
consideration.  Denmark,  in  turn,  likewise  informed  the  belligerent 
Powers  on  July  8,  1780,  that  it  fully  acceded  to  the  Russian  principles 
and  that  it  would  have  them  absolutely  observed. 


GEFFCKEN:  Das  Rccht  dcr  Intervention  and  Die  Nentralitdt 
(Articles  in  HoltzendorfT's  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts.  Ham- 
burg, 1889). 

Friedrich  Heinrich  Geffcken.  German  publicist;  born  in  1830;  died  in  1896; 
member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law.  After  receiving  his  doctor's 
degree  at  Bonn  he  entered  the  diplomatic  service  of  the  Hanseatic  cities  in 
which  service  he  remained,  occupying  positions  at  Paris,  Berlin  and  London, 
until  1872,  when  he  became  professor  of  public  law  at  the  University  of  Strass- 
burg.  Ten  years  later  he  retired  and  devoted  himself  to  his  favorite  studies 
and  to  the  publication  of  numerous  works,  taking  especial  interest  in  questions 
of  international  law. 

Among  the  works  of  Geffcken  are  French  and  German  editions  of  Heffter's 
Das  europdische  Volkerrccht  der  Gegenzvart  (eighth  German  edition,  1888),  La 
Question  du  Danube,  1883,  Die  Alabama-Frage,  and  numerous  articles  published 
in  Holtzendorff's  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts  on  international  law  and  the 
papacy,  treaties  of  guaranty,  treaties  of  alliance,  right  of  intervention,  maritime 
warfare,  and  neutrality. 


Volume  4,  §  45,  page  1^8. — An  unlawful  attack  by  a  State,  barbarous 
conduct  of  war,  and  an  utter  disregard  of  all  the  rights  of  neutrals 
represent  a  common  danger  for  all  other  States  against  which  the 
latter  are  justified  in  interfering  and  against  which  they  should  inter- 
fere upon  the  appeal  of  those  concerned.  Looked  at  from  this  point 
of  view,  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  was  a  legitimate  intervention  by 


ifncontestably  one  of  the   noblest  statesmen  of  the   last  century;   was  born 
in  Hanover  in  1735,  and  died  in  1797. 


100  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

which  the  Powers  interested  declared  that  they  would  no  longer  submit 
to  the  arbitrary  treatment  of  neutral  Powers  on  the  seas  on  the  part 
of  England. 

Volume  4,  §  I2p,  page  6op. — While  the  neutral  State  refrains  from 
favoring  any  one  of  the  belligerents,  it  demands  on  the  other  hand 
that  the  belligerents  should  strictly  observe  its  independence.  War 
must  cease  at  its  frontiers  and  in  the  presence  of  its  rights.  When 
this  is  not  done,  then  the  neutral  State  is  justified  in  opposing  such 
a  violation  with  all  means  at  its  command,  in  demanding  satisfaction 
therefor,  and  eventually  in  defending  its  right  by  armed  forces.  For, 
inasmuch  as  the  neutral  State  declares  its  impartiality  in  a  war  that  is 
being  waged,  it  does  not  thereby  renounce  any  of  its  sovereign  rights, 
and  therefore  does  not  renounce  the  right  to  uphold  its  independence 
with  armed  power;  and  many  rules  have  had  their  origin  in  the  mere 
violation  of  neutral  rights.  An  armed  neutrality  therefore  does  not 
violate  the  rights  of  either  belligerent  party,  so  long  as  it  is  merely 
defensive. 

§  ^33'  P^9^  ^-0. — England,  which  regarded  the  principles  of  the 
Consolato  del  Mare  as  its  rule,  insisted  that  "free  ship,  free  merchan- 
dise" was  valid  only  through  special  agreement.  She  granted  this  only 
as  the  price  for  a  return  service  and  from  political  interests,  and  was 
indeed  very  careful  not  to  put  herself  under  obligation  in  this  way 
except  to  those  to  which  she  had  specifically  granted  such  right.  An 
eflFort  was  made  also,  to  oppose  by  treaties  the  ever-growing  extension 
given  by  the  belligerents  to  the  meaning  of  contraband.  Nevertheless, 
the  list  of  forbidden  articles  increased  constantly  according  as  such 
articles  might  be  usable  in  time  of  peace  or  in  time  of  war.  England 
did  not  merely  include  in  this  list  timber,  cordage,  sail  canvas,  iron, 
lead,  tar  and  pitch,  but  even  provisions,  money  and  articles  of  clothing. 
Another  English  encroachment  upon  the  rights  of  neutrals  was  the 
so-called  rule  of  the  zvar  of  1756,  according  to  which  neutrals  were  not 
to  be  permitted  to  carry  on  trade  during  the  war  with  the  colonies  of  a 
belligerent,  if  such  trade  was  not  permitted  foreign  ships  in  time  of 
peace.  As  a  rule,  in  those  times  the  trade  with  the  colonies  was  reserved 
to  the  national  ships.  In  the  Seven  Years'  War  English  cruisers  cut 
off  all  connection  of  France  with  her  colonies ;  hence,  Dutch  merchants 
were  permitted  to  carry  on  that  trade  for  the  duration  of  the  war. 
England  however  took  away  all  Dutch  ships  which  enjoyed  that 
privilege  and  condemned  them,  together  with  their  cargoes,  although 


GEFFCKEN  101 

she  had  granted  to  Holland  the  right  of  "free  ship,  free  merchandise"; 
for  the  English  jurists  state  that  neutrals  had  only  the  right  in  time 
of  war  to  continue  their  ordinary  peace  commerce  with  the  belligerents, 
but  not  a  commerce  to  which  they  were  not  entitled  in  time  of  peace 
which  they  could  only  secure  through  the  success  of  one  of  the  bel- 
ligerents and  only  at  the  cost  of  the  other,  while  thus  colonies  might 
maintain  themselves  which  otherwise  would  fall  into  their  power  and 
France  could  use  her  merchant  ship  crews  for  manning  war-ships. 
They  state  that  such  Dutch  ships  were  French  per  adoptionem,  hence 
had  become  enemy  ships.  In  connection  with  this  rule  there  arose 
the  theory  of  the  continuous  voyage.  The  neutrals  sought  to  escape 
seizure  by  sailing  from  the  colonies  to  a  neutral  port  from  which  they 
might  subsequently  transport  their  cargoes  to  an  enemy  port.  The 
English  prize  judge,  Sir  W.  Scott,  declared  forfeited  those  neutral 
ships  together  with  their  cargoes  which  were  met  with  on  their  voyage 
from  a  neutral  to  an  enemy  port,  if  it  was  found  that  the  cargoes  were 
shipped  previously  from  an  enemy  colonial  port  to  the  neutral  port ; 
for  in  such  case,  he  stated,  he  was  dealing  with  a  continuous  voyage 
from  the  colonial  port  to  the  enemy  port  which  was  the  real  object 
of  the  voyage,  and  intermediate  stations  touched  at  by  the  neutral  could 
not  be  considered,  dohis  circmtu  non  piirgatur.  Lord  Stowell  applied 
this  theory  of  the  continuous  voyage  to  contraband  and  asserted  that 
the  condemnation  was  justified  even  though  its  enemy  destination  was 
not  yet  established,  but  the  captain  was  ordered  to  take  the  cargo  either 
to  an  enemy  or  a  neutral  port,  according  to  the  circumstances.  He 
further  asserted  that  a  neutral  ship  was  guilty  of  violating  the  blockade 
at  the  moment  when  it  started  on  its  way  to  a  blockaded  harbor ;  finally 
England  misused  the  concession  of  the  neutrals  which  has  its  being  in 
the  blockade,  by  the  so-called  paper  blockades  declaring  whole  stretches 
of  coasts  with  all  their  ports  as  blockaded  when  in  fact  they  were  not 
cut  off  from  traffic. 

But  in  view  of  the  superior  power  of  England,  it  availed  the  neutral 
Governments  but  little  to  protest  against  these  encroachments,  so  long 
as  they  were  not  resolved  to  compel  the  observance  of  just  principles 
or  to  secure  for  their  subjects  indemnification  for  the  losses  they  had 
sustained.  This  was  accomplished  by  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780. 
In  the  war  between  England  and  her  rebellious  colonies  of  North 
America,  privateers  of  the  latter  had  captured  several  English  ships  en 
route  to  Archangel.     Empress  Catherine  II  therefore  turned  to  Den- 


102  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

mark  with  the  proposition  to  protect  those  regions  of  the  North  Sea 
with  a  common  fleet  and  to  preserve  the  ships  of  all  nations  from  being 
captured  if  they  sailed  to  Russian  ports  within  ten  miles  along  the  coast. 
The  Danish  Minister,  Count  Bernstorff,  admitted  that  such  a  measure, 
which  would  deprive  the  belligerent  parties  of  the  objects  of  their 
attacks  on  a  portion  of  the  open  sea,  was  not  justifiable  in  international 
law,  and  that  furthermore  it  would  only  accrue  to  the  benefit  of  England 
whose  ships  carried  most  of  the  commerce  destined  for  Archangel. 
In  consequence,  he  proposed  to  extend  the  intended  common  action  and 
recommended  the  establishment  of  certain  fundamental  principles  in 
whose  defense  against  England  all  the  neutral  Powers  should  pledge 
themselves  by  treaty,  and  he  thus  formulated  principles  which  were  later 
on  set  forth  in  the  armed  neutrality.  Russia,  however,  was  not  then 
ready  to  enter  into  such  an  arrangement,  because  unlike  Denmark  she 
had  not  a  merchant  fleet  engaged  in  trade  on  all  the  seas,  but  wished 
only  to  protect  commerce  destined  for  Archangel.  The  question  entered 
into  a  new  phase  only  after  Spain,  as  a  third  belligerent  against 
England,  allied  herself  with  France  and  North  America.  By  the  treaty 
of  February  6,  1778,  France  and  North  America  had  approved  the 
principle  "free  ship,  free  merchandise,"  and  the  French  ordinance  of 
July  26,  1778  had  extended  this  principle  to  all  neutrals.  Thus,  French 
cruisers  were  forbidden  to  capture  neutral  ships,  even  though  they 
were  sailing  from  one  enemy  port  to  another  enemy  port,  if  such  ports 
were  not  blockaded.  Ships  carrying  contraband  were  to  be  subject 
to  seizure,  the  contraband  itself  confiscable,  but  the  ship  was  to  be 
released  in  case  the  contraband  did  not  constitute  three-fourths  of  the 
value  of  the  cargo.  This  concession  was  however  subject  to  cancella- 
tion if  the  enemy  should  not  observe  the  like  within  six  months. 
Though  she  joined  the  alliance  of  the  two  Powers,  Spain  did  not 
recognize  these  principles  but  applied  England's  rule,  that  the  flag 
does  not  protect  the  cargo,  against  that  country.  Two  ships  freighted 
with  Russian  grain  to  Mediterranean  ports  were  seized  by  Spain 
under  the  idle  pretext  that  they  were  intended  to  reprovision  Gibraltar. 
This  act  so  embittered  Catherine  II  that  she  ordered  a  fleet  equipped 
for  the  protection  of  Russian  property,  and  directed  Count  Panin  to 
notify  the  foreign  Powers  that  she  was  determined  to  do  everything 
necessary  for  the  interests  of  her  subjects  and  of  all  neutral  sovereigns. 
Count  Panin  was  accordingly  directed  to  explain  to  the  belligerent 
Powers  the  principles  which  Russia  considered  as  proper  in  regard  to 


GEFFCKEN  103 

neutral  commerce,  and  to  invite  the  neutral  Powers,  Denmark,  Sweden, 
Portugal  and  Holland,  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with  Russia  to  that 
same  effect.  Panin  planned  this  explanation  which  contained  almost 
word  for  word  the  points  in  the  Bernstorfif  note  of  1778,  so  that  the 
Danish  Minister  is  the  spiritual  author  of  the  armed  neutrality. 
Catherine  signed  this  note  and  its  contents  were  sanctioned  by  treaties 
with  Denmark  of  July  9th,  and  with  Sweden  of  August  1st.  In  the 
interval  between  1781  and  1783,  the  Netherlands,  Prussia,  Austria, 
the  Two  Sicilies,  Portugal,  France  and  the  United  States  acceded 
thereto.  Spain  reserved  to  herself  to  apply  the  English  principles  with 
regard  to  England.  (Note  of  April  18,  1780.)  The  declaration  con- 
tains the  following: 

1.  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

2.  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband 
merchandise. 

3.  That,  as  to  the  specification  of  the  above-mentioned  merchandise, 
the  Empress  holds  to  what  is  enumerated  in  the  10th  and  11th  articles 
of  her  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain  (June  20,  1776),  extend- 
ing her  obligations  to  all  the  Powers  at  war. 

4.  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  designa- 
tion shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed 
its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access  thereto 
clearly  dangerous. 

5.  That  these  principles  shall  serve  as  a  rule  for  proceedings  and 
judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

This  last  point  is  expanded  in  the  treaty  with  Prussia  of  May  8,  1781, 
Article  3  (4),  as  follows: 

"That  neutral  vessels  may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause  and  when 
the  facts  are  perfectly  evident;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  without  de- 
lay; that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal; 
and  that,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  granted  to  vessels  which 
have  suffered  loss  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satisfaction 
shall  in  each  case  be  rendered  for  the  insult  to  the  flag."^ 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  allied  States  and  especially  Russia  sur- 
rendered later  on  the  principles  which  they  had  regarded  as  the  pal- 
ladium of  the  neutrals  and  as  the  basis  of  the  maritime  law  of  nations ; 

^Post,  p.  399. 


104  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

nevertheless,  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  retains  its  great  historic  and 
international  significance.  With  the  sole  exception  of  England,  the 
most  important  States  had  agreed  upon  a  formulated  establishment  of 
the  most  important  points  of  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare.  This 
was  a  hard  blow  to  England  which  she  sought  in  vain  to  mitigate  by 
declaring  her  readiness  to  grant  by  exception  to  the  Russian  flag  that 
which  the  armed  neutrality  had  in  formal  principles  claimed  for  all 
flags.  Although  she  yielded  none  of  her  established  principles,  England, 
willing  or  unwilling,  had  to  be  considerate  to  the  neutrals,  in  order 
not  to  burden  herself  with  still  more  claims,  and  as  a  result,  the  claims 
of  the  declaration  were  fully  observed  in  the  latter  years  of  the  war; 
therefore,  the  armed  neutrality  demonstrated  that  even  the  strongest 
maritime  Power — and  the  more  certainly  so,  the  longer  a  maritime  war 
lasts — can  be  compelled  to  adapt  her  conduct  to  the  claims  of  the 
neutrals,  as  soon  as  the  latter  have  reached  an  agreement  among 
themselves. 

§  164,  page  740. — In  the  treaty  of  1742  between  France  and  Den- 
mark it  is  stipulated  that  entrance  to  a  port  is  closed  by  at  least  two 
ships  or  by  a  coast  battery;  in  the  treaty  of  1753  between  Holland  and 
the  Two  Sicilies,  we  read:  "No  ports  or  cities  shall  be  held  besieged  or 
blockaded  unless  they  are  invested  from  the  sea  by  six  war-ships  from 
a  distance  a  little  beyond  cannon  range  of  the  place,  or  from  the  shore, 
by  cannon  batteries  and  other  works,  in  such  manner  that  no  vessel 
could  enter  therein  without  passing  under  the  cannon  of  the  besiegers." 
.  .  .  England  alone  continued  to  order  fictitious  blockades  by  mere 
ordinance,  and  in  1756  she  declared  all  French  ports  blockaded.  A 
large  number  of  neutral  ships  were  seized  in  consequence,  especially 
Dutch  ships,  and  the  States  General  complained  vigorously  against 
this  conduct  which  they  themselves  had  initiated ;  and  while  they 
secured  the  release  of  their  captured  ships  and  cargoes,  yet  England 
did  not  surrender  her  claim.  The  admiralty  court  declared  even  in 
1780,  that  "through  her  insular  situation  England  naturally  blockaded 
all  Spanish  and  French  ports."  The  armed  neutrality  of  1780  remedied 
this  abuse  by  declaring  under  Article  4 :  "That  to  determine  what 
constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  designation  shall  apply  only  to  a 
port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently 
near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access  thereto  clearly  danger- 
ous." This  provision  was  not  a  declaration  of  the  rule  which  all  other 
States  with  the  exception  of  England  had  already  theretofore  accepted. 


GEFFCKEN  105 

but  aimed  at  the  establishment  of  a  new  rule  under  the  pressure  of  a 
political  conjuncture  which  compelled  England  to  accept  it  although 
she  protested  vigorously  against  it.  This  principle  was  soon  after- 
wards violated  by  the  most  of  the  contracting  Parties,  by  Russia  in 
her  war  with  Turkey  in  1787,  by  Sweden  in  her  war  with  Russia  in 
1789,  and  in  the  course  of  these  years,  Russia  concluded  treaties  with 
Portugal,  France  and  the  Two  Sicilies  which  departed  from  the 
principle  of  the  armed  neutrality;  for  instance,  in  Article  27  (3)  of 
the  treaty  with  France  of  January  11,  1787,  it  is  provided:  "That  in 
order  to  determine  that  which  characterizes  a  blockaded  port,  such  term 
shall  be  applied  only  to  a  port  which  shall  be  attacked  by  a  number  of 
vessels  proportionate  to  the  strength  of  the  place,  which  vessels  shall 
be  sufficiently  near  so  that  there  may  be  evident  danger  in  entering 
into  the  said  ports. "^  We  find  the  same  wording  in  Article  18  (3)  of 
the  treaty  of  1787  between  Russia  and  the  Two  Sicilies.'  In  the 
meantime,  the  second  armed  neutrality  of  1800  did  not  only  repeat  the 
text  of  the  first,  but  added  also  that  a  ship  shall  be  considered  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  blockade  only  "when  after  having  been  warned  by  the 
blockade  commander  of  the  state  of  the  port,  she  attempts  to  penetrate 
therein  by  the  use  of  force  or  by  ruse."  England  however  scored  a 
success  when  in  her  treaty  with  Russia  of  1801,  acceded  to  by  Denmark 
and  Sweden,  Russia  not  only  surrendered  this  additional  article,  but 
agreed  that  a  port  should  be  regarded  as  blockaded,  "where  there  is, 
by  the  dispositions  of  the  Power  which  attacks  it  with  ships,  stationary 
or  sufficiently  near,  an  evident  danger  in  entering."  Through  the 
particle  "or"  England  secured  the  movability  of  the  ships,  while  the 
"stationary  and  sufficiently  nearby"  of  the  armed  neutrality  made  the 
conjuncture  of  the  two  moments  the  condition  of  a  lawful  blockade. 
The  opposition  criticised  the  fact  that  England  had  consented  that 
the  ships  must  cruise  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  blockaded  port, 
because  in  such  case  they  could  not  capture  ships  on  the  open  seas ;  but 
actually  the  British  Government  paid  little  attention  to  this  concession. 
While  it  had  unreservedly  recognized  that  the  blockading  Power  must 
have  a  sufficient  fighting  force  to  cause  the  blockade  to  be  observed,  it 
declared  through  its  order  of  May  16,  1806,  that  all  ports,  coasts  and 
rivers  from  the  Elbe  even  to  Brest  "should  be  considered  as  being 


^Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  4,  p.  210. 
2/fcfrf.,  p.  237. 


106  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

actually  blockaded"  ^ — a  paper  and  cruiser  blockade — for  which  the 
retaliatory  character  could  not  be  advanced  which  the  British  admiralty 
set  up  for  the  subsequent  blockade  of  all  the  ports  of  the  mainland 
as  a  defense  against  Napoleon's  continental  embargo.  The  Berlin 
decree  of  November  21,  1806,  which  promulgated  this  embargo  was 
on  the  contrary  the  answer  to  the  aforementioned  ordinance.  Its 
preamble:  "The  British  Isles  are  declared  in  a  state  of  blockade"  seems 
ridiculous,  since  in  those  times  France  had  not  a  single  ship  on  the 
high  seas.  In  fact,  the  isolation  was  merely  to  be  carried  out  through 
the  exclusion  of  English  commerce  from  all  the  ports  of  the  mainland. 
The  Order  in  Council  of  January  7,  1807,  forbade  the  commerce  of 
neutrals  between  ports  from  which  the  British  flag  was  excluded,  and 
the  order  of  November  11,  1807  declared  these  ports  "subject  to  the 
same  limitations  for  commerce  and  navigation  as  if  they  were  closely 
blockaded  by  the  sea  forces  of  His  Majesty,"  and  thus  acknowledged 
that  there  was  no  virtual  blockade  of  the  ports.^ 


GEFFCKEN :  Le  Droit  International  de  I' Europe,  by  August  Wilhelm 
Heffter.  Translated  by  Jules  Bergson.  Fourth  French  edition, 
enlarged  and  annotated  by  F.  Heinrich  GefFcken.  Berlin,  Paris, 
1883. 


Page  ^62,  note  4  [hy  Geffckeii]. — The  war  waged  by  England  from 
1775-1783  with  its  insurgent  American  colonies  had,  by  the  participa- 
tion of  France  and  Spain,  assumed  a  general  aspect.  France  and  Hol- 
land maintained  the  principle  that  the  flag  covers  the  goods ;  but  Spain 
and  England  refused  to  recognize  this  principle.  The  latter  especially 
employed  its  preponderant  naval  strength  in  a  way  that  worked  great 
hardship  to  neutrals.  At  the  same  time  England  eagerly  sought  an  alli- 
ance with  Russia.  According  to  the  memorials  of  Goertz  and  of  Sir 
James  Harris  (Eord  Malmesbury),  the  English  envoy  had  won  Potem- 
kin  over  to  his  side,  and  their  scheme  was  only  frustrated  by  a  clever 
stroke  on  the  part  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Count  Panin,  a 


^Martens,  Nouvcau  Recueil.  vol.  1,  p.  436. 
2/bjd.,  p.  446. 


GEFFCKEN  107 

partisan  of  Frederick  II,  who  had  been  hostile  to  England  ever  since 
that  country  had  deserted  Prussia  during  the  Seven  Years'  War. 
Panin  had  dazzled  the  eyes  of  the  Empress  with  the  armed  neutrality 
league  of  1780  as  a  movement  in  the  interest  of  civilization,  and  Cath- 
erine did  not  have  a  very  clear  notion  of  the  scope  of  this  measure,  which 
was  really  directed  against  England.  This  version  is  no  longer  tenable, 
in  view  of  the  recent  publications  of  Katchenovsky  (Prize  Law),  of  Mr. 
de  Martens  in  his  commentary  contained  in  the  collection  of  treaties  con- 
cluded by  Russia,  volumes  2  and  3,  and  of  Eichelmann,  Der  Bezvaffnete 
N eutralitdtsbund  Riisslands  z^om  Jahre  i/8o.  These  works  show  that 
the  league  was  a  plan  carefully  thought  out  by  Catherine  and  followed 
from  1778  by  negotiations  with  Denmark  for  the  purpose  of  safe- 
guarding the  rights  of  neutrals.  It  was  Count  BernstorfT,  the  eminent 
Danish  Minister,  who  gave  practical  form  to  the  ideas  of  the  Empress, 
and  the  seizure  of  a  Russian  vessel  by  the  Spanish  Government  was 
the  final  blow  which  removed  the  difference  of  opinion  between  Russia 
and  Denmark  with  regard  to  the  measures  to  be  taken.  The  declara- 
tion adopted  by  the  two  Powers  was  submitted  to  Sweden,  the  Nether- 
lands, France,  the  United  States,  Prussia,  and  Austria,  with  a  view  to 
their  accession.  It  was  the  first  great  collective  measure  of  maritime 
law,  for  the  States  which  acceded  to  the  Russian  declaration  adopted 
also  its  system  in  their  intercourse  with  each  other,  and  in  spite  of  its 
imperfections,  it  was  a  progressive  measure  uniting  neutrals  for  the 
defense  of  their  rights  against  the  arbitrary  action  of  England.  This 
explains  the  cordial  welcome  that  greeted  the  Russian  proposal  and 
assures  it  an  important  place  in  the  history  of  international  law.  There- 
fore if  Catherine  subsequently  asked  Sir  James  Harris,  as  he  relates, 
"P.ut  in  what  way  does  this  neutrality,  or  rather  armed  nullity,  hurt 
you  ?"  it  was  merely  a  part  of  her  tactics.  Harris's  answer  is  no  less 
interesting.  "In  every  way  that  it  possibly  can,"  said  he.  "It  lays 
down  new  laws  which  protect  the  commerce  of  our  enemies  while  ex- 
posing ours ;  it  leaves  them  their  merchant  ships  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  their  troops ;  it  tends  to  confuse  our  friends  with  our  enemies. 
We  shall  do  everything  we  can  for  your  ships,  but  Your  Imperial 
Majesty  surely  does  not  intend  by  this  armed  neutrality  that  every 
nation  shall  enjoy  the  same  right."  On  Catherine's  refusal  to  aban- 
don her  declaration,  England,  in  order  to  win  over  Russia  and  other 
neutral  Powers,  consented  to  make  special  concessions  by  treaty,  but 
refused  to  adhere  to  the  declaration,  although  Fox,  who  had  entered 


108  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

the  Alinistry  in  1782,  looked  upon  it  with  favor.  On  making  peace 
with  France  in  1783,  England  simply  renewed  the  aforesaid  stipulations 
of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  It  refused  a  similar  concession  to  Holland, 
which  had  enjoyed  these  rights  since  1634,  as  well  as  to  the  United 
States,  and  thus  succeeded  in  destroying  the  coalition  of  the  signatories 
of  the  declaration,  which  was  gradually  abandoned  by  all  the  Powers 
which  had  adhered  to  it.  On  March  25,  1793,  Russia  even  signed  a 
treaty  with  England,  prohibiting  neutrals  to  give  even  indirect  protec- 
tion to  the  commerce  or  property  of  the  French,  with  whose  country 
they  were  at  war  (Article  4)  Martens,  Rccueil,  vol.  5,  p.  115;  Fox, 
Memorials,  I,  III).  The  wars  of  the  French  Revolution  in  general 
revived  these  abuses.  The  allied  Governments  forbade  neutrals  to 
carry  into  France  provisions  and  goods  from  foreign  sources.  The 
Convention  followed  suit  in  its  own  defense,  and  on  March  9,  1793, 
abrogated  the  principle  that  the  flag  covers  the  goods.  In  1794  England 
proclaimed  the  rule  that  neutral  nations  had  the  right  to  carry  merely 
their  own  products,  but  not  those  of  other  countries  (Katchenovsky, 
p.  77,  note  i^).  France  replied  to  these  measures  by  declaring  every 
vessel  to  be  lawful  prize  that  was  laden  even  partially  with  goods 
emanating  from  England,  no  matter  who  was  their  owner,  and  drew 
up  a  list  of  articles  reputed  to  be  the  products  of  English  factories,  no 
matter  where  they  actually  were  made.  The  Baltic  States,  on  their 
part,  proclaimed  anew  in  1800  the  principles  of  armed  neutrality,  with 
certain  additions.^ 


HALL:  The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals.     London,  1874. 

William  Edward  Hall.  British  publicist  and  member  of  the  Institute  of  Inter- 
national Law,  born  in  1835,  died  in  1894.  Mr.  Hall  is  known  in  international  law 
for  his  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrals,  1874,  and  especially  for  his  masterly 
Treatise  on  International  Law,  first  published  in  1880. 

Tlie  latter  work  has  run  through  six  editions,  and  has  been  regarded  as  an 
authority — indeed,  a  classic — from  the  date  of  its  appearance,  in  1880.  The 
writer's  national  bias  crops  out  betimes,  and  has  subjected  the  work  to  no  little 
criticism. 


'Footnote  2,  post,  p.  129. 

^For  further  commentary  by  Geffcken,  see  Heflfter,  post,  p.  110. 


HALL  109 

Page  io6. — It  was  natural,  however,  that  the  secondary  maritime 
Powers  should  in  time  accommodate  their  theories  to  their  interests. 
They  were  not  sure  of  being  able  as  belligerents  to  enforce  a  stringent 
rule;  they  were  certain  as  neutrals  to  gain  by  its  relaxation.  Accord- 
ingly, in  1780  Russia  issued  a  declaration  of  neutral  rights,  among  the 
provisions  of  which  was  one  limiting  articles  of  contraband  to  muni- 
tions of  war  and  sulphur.  Sweden  and  Demiiark  immediately  adhered 
to  the  declaration  of  Russia,  and  with  the  latter  Power  formed  the 
league  known  as  the  first  armed  neutrality.  Spain,  France,  Holland, 
the  United  States,  Prussia,  and  Austria,  acceded  to  the  alliance  in  the 
course  of  the  following  year.  Finally  it  was  joined  in  1782  by  Por- 
tugal, and  in  1783  by  the  Two  Sicilies. 

It  is  usual  for  foreign  publicists  to  treat  the  formation  of  the  armed 
neutrality  as  a  generous  effort  to  bridle  the  aggressions  of  England, 
and  as  investing  the  principles  expressed  in  the  Russian  declaration 
with  the  authority  of  such  doctrines  as  are  accepted  by  the  body  of 
civilized  nations.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  the  motives  which 
actuated  the  Russian  Government;^  but  it  is  impossible  to  admit  that 
the  doctrines  which  it  put  forward  received  any  higher  sanction  at  the 
time  than  such  as  could  be  imparted  by  an  agreement  between  the 
Baltic  Powers.  The  accession  of  France,  Spain,  Holland,  and  the 
United  States  was  an  act  of  hostility  directed  against  England,  with 
which  they  were  then  at  war,  and  was  valueless  as  indicating  their 
settled  policy,  and  still  more  valueless  as  manifesting  their  views  of 
existing  international  right.  It  was  the  seizure  by  Spain  of  two  Rus- 
sian vessels  laden  with  wheat  which  was  the  accidental  cause  of  the 
original  declaration,  and  within  a  few  months  of  adhering  to  the  league 
France  had  imposed  a  treaty  upon  Mecklenburg,  and  Spain  had  issued 
an  ordinance,  both  of  which  were  in  direct  contradiction  to  parts  of 
the  declaration.^  The  value  of  Russian  and  Austrian  opinion  in  the 
then  position  of  those  countries  as  maritime  Powers  is  absolutely  trivial. 
Whatever  authority  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  possess, 
they  have  since  acquired  by  inspiring  to  a  certain  but  varying  extent 
the  policy  of  France,  the  United  States,  Russia,  and  the  minor  Powers. 

Page  141. — The  second  armed  neutrality  reasserted  for  a  moment 


^The  intrigues  which  led  to  the  issue  of  the  Russian  declaration  are  sketched 
by  Sir  R.  Phillimore,  iii,  Sec.  186 ;  see  also  Lord  Stanhope,  History  of  England, 
chap.  Ixii. 

2A11  the  signataries  to  the  declaration  of  the  armed  neutrality  violated  one 
or  other  of  its  provisions  w^hen  they  were  themselves  next  at  war. 


no  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  principles  of  1780,  but  one  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty  concluded 
between  England  and  Russia  in  1801,  to  which  Denmark  and  Sweden 
afterwards  acceded,  provided  that  the  property  of  enemies  on  board 
neutral  vessels  should  be  confiscable.  In  1807  Russia  annulled  the 
convention  of  1801,  and  proclaiming  afresh  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality,  declared  that  she  would  never  depart  from  them  ;^  but  in 
1809  an  ukase  was  issued  under  which  "ships  laden  in  part  with  the 
goods  of  the  manufacture  or  produce  of  hostile  countries  were  to  be 
stopped,  and  the  merchandise  confiscated  and  sold  by  auction  for  the 
profit  of  the  crown.  But  if  the  merchandise  aforesaid  compose  more 
than  half  the  cargo,  not  only  the  cargo,  but  the  ship  also  shall  be 
confiscated."^ 


HEFFTER:  Das  Europdische  Volkerrecht  dcr  Gegemvart  auf  den 
hisherigen  Grundlagen.  Eighth  edition,  with  notes  and  commen- 
tary by  F.  Heinrich  Gefifcken.     Berlin,  1888. 

August  Wilhelm  Heffter.  German  publicist;  born  in  1796;  died  in  1880;  pro- 
fessor at  the  Universities  of  Berlin,  Bonn,  and  Halle;  member  of  the  Institute 
of  International  Law. 

His  treatise  on  international  law,  the  above  work,  first  appeared  in  1844,  and 
has  been  translated  into  several  languages.  It  is  considered  authoritative  in 
international  law  and  its  value  has  been  enhanced  by  the  notes  of  Gefifcken. 
Heftter  has  been  reproached  with  the  failure  to  present  personal  ideas,  but,  as 
Gefifcken  says,  he  does  at  least  present  with  legal  precision  the  actual  state  of 
international  law  in  force  at  the  time  he  wrote. 


Page  JJ5,  §  151. — Notwithstanding  the  general  agreement  as  to  the 
principles  of  international  law,  there  is  much  uncertainty  as  to  their 
application  to  the  right  of  the  free  international  traffic,  especially  of 
maritime  commerce.  No  uncertainty  prevails  with  regard  to  the  ab- 
solute freedom  of  the  neutral  nations  to  engage  in  neutral  commerce ; 
but  the  specification  and  designation  of  such  traffic  and  the  removal 
of  certain  annoyances  hitherto  met  with  and  consequent  upon  the  state 


iQrtolan,  vol.  2,  p.  156. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  Supplement,  vol.  5,  p.  485. 


HEFFTER  111 

of  war  between  other  nations  demand  the  future  adoption  of  certain 
principles  relative  to  the  restrictions  which  neutral  commerce  in  refer- 
ence to  the  belligerent  parties  must  bear.  For  centuries,  this  question 
fias  been  a  bone  of  contention  between  the  nations ;  it  is  the  one  ques- 
tion which  emphasizes  the  decided  want  of  an  international  code  of 
laws  or  at  least  of  an  international  tribunal ;  in  the  practical  solution 
of  the  question  the  right  of  the  stronger  triumphs  and  the  absence  of 
rights  of  the  weaker  figures  conspicuously.  And  the  question  is  not 
merely  in  dispute  in  the  international  practice,  but  no  theoretical  agree- 
ment as  to  principles  has  ever  been  reached.  Both,  in  certain  coun- 
tries, have  arrayed  themselves  with  the  mask  of  legal  prescriptions  and 
judicial  decisions,  and  by  this  means  secured  a  certain  imposing  au- 
thority; yet,  such  laws  and  judicial  decisions  are  nothing  more  than 
the  political  acts  of  individual  States,  by  which  the  other  States  are 
not  bound,  except  where  the  weaker  States  are  considered  which  stand 
in  fear  of  the  enforcement  of  those  laws,  notwithstanding  their  un- 
fairness. 

In  no  other  part  of  the  science  of  international  law  has  so  little 
progress  been  made.  Still,  even  in  this  matter,  there  may  be  had 
generally  sound  principles  for  the  States  with  which  our  system  deals, 
especially  if  a  law  is  to  prevail  among  them,  in  case  the  legal  relation 
between  them  as  they  have  hitherto  been  represented,  correspond  to 
the  reality  of  things.  It  is  especially  from  the  point  of  view  of  this 
reality  of  things  that  we  must  attempt  to  solve  the  various  interna- 
tional questions  of  controversy,  by  regarding  as  the  law  of  the  com- 
mon will  all  the  rules  which  have  been  generally  and  mutually  accepted 
in  international  practice ;  but  where  such  will  is  absent,  the  solution 
must  be  found  in  the  study  of  the  question  as  a  whole. ^^ 

''[Commentary  by  Geffcken :  As  stated  by  Hall  {International  Law.  2d  ed., 
Oxford,  1884,  §  232),  all  commerce  is  divided  into  purchase  or  sale  of  the  mer- 
chandise and  forwarding  of  the  same  on  payment  of  freight  rates.  Purchase 
and  sale  are  quite  free  between  neutral  and  belligerent  subjects;  within  their 
own  territory,  neutrals  may  even  sell  war  material  to  the  belligerents,  and  the 
party  not  concerned  in  the  transaction  is  not  entitled  to  file  objection,  so  long 
as  the  neutral  Government  has  no  part  in  it  and  has  not  forbidden  such   sale 


^A  thoroughgoing  presentation  of  the  theory  and  practice  in  this  matter  will 
be  found  in  the  work :  Researches,  historical  and  critical,  in  maritime  interna- 
tional lazv,  by  James  Reddie,  Esq.  In  the  main,  it  is,  of  course,  only  a  defense  of 
the  cardinal  points  in  the  British  practice :  but  with  certain  concessions.  In 
respect  of  this,  see  observation  by  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  432. 


112  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

on  account  of  national  interests.  If  this  is  done,  as  for  instance,  when  in  1870, 
Belgium  and  Switzerland  embargoed  the  exportation  of  arms,  it  may  be  all 
right  from  a  political  point  of  view,  but  it  may  not  be  compelled.  The  other 
part  of  commerce,  that  relating  to  the  shipping  of  neutral  merchandise  to  bellig- 
erents, is  likewise,  in  principle,  free;  but  when  the  neutral  Government  is  not 
obligated  to  prohibit  such  shipping,  the  belligerent  can  certainly  not  permit  two 
different  things  at  the  same  time:  (1)  permit  neutral  subjects  to  forward  mer- 
chandise by  sea  to  his  opponent,  merchandise  which  is  to  enable  him  to  con- 
tinue the  war;  and  (2)  permit  them  to  forward  merchandise  to  an  enemy  port 
which  he  is  bent  upon  cutting  off  from  all  traffic.  Belligerents  are  therefore 
entitled  to  hinder  the  shipping  of  contraband  and  entrance  into  blockaded  ports ; 
the  neutral  Government  does  not  interfere;  it  tells  its  subjects  merely  that  if 
they  engage  in  such  affairs,  they  shall  do  it  at  their  own  risk,  and  reserves  to 
itself  to  see  to  it  that  the  belligerents  act  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  inter- 
national law  if  they  exercise  their  right  to  interfere  with  the  acts.] 

§  i§2. — The  history  of  this  question^''  begins  really  only  with  the 
sixteenth  century,  since  which  time  maritime  commerce  has  no  longer 
been  the  exclusive  privilege  of  a  few  nations  less  active  in  other  fruit- 
ful achievements,  or  of  societies  and  cities,  but  has  strongly  appealed 
to  every  nation,  and  has  been  regarded  as  a  capital  source  of  the  well- 
being  of  nations  and  fostered  by  the  Governments.  The  rivalry  be- 
tween the  various  national  interests  which  arose  as  a  consequence,  led, 
in  the  States  able  to  do  so,  to  an  increase  both  of  the  mercantile  and 
the  war  navies,  and  to  a  jealous  struggle  between  the  nations,  from 
which  but  one  State,  through  gigantic  effort,  issued  with  a  power  and 
importance  and  in  abiding  form  such  as  neither  the  ancient  nor  the 
modern  world  had  theretofore  witnessed.  Around  this  centrum  the 
whole  modern  maritime  warfare  has  been  gravitating.  In  appearance 
following  the  simple  rules  of  former  centuries,  and  attributing  depar- 
ture from  those  rules  only  to  the  arbitrariness  of  treaties,  the  State 
to  which  we  are  alluding  has  not  been  lacking  in  means,  by  resort  to  its 
principles,  to  make  all  other  States  feel  its  superiority  of  power,  and 
even  to  exert  it  to  an  unbearably  harsh  degree,  which  brought  about 
an  unavoidable  and  necessary  reaction.  This  happened  first  in  the 
seventeenth  century  during  the  frequent  wars  between  England  on 
the  one  hand,  and  Spain  and  France,  on  the  other ;  since  the  time  of 
Louis  XIV,  by  abandoning  the  ruinous  system  which  had  theretofore 
generally  prevailed  and  under  the  thriving  rise  of  commerce,  France 
had  created   for  herself  a  new  code  of  maritime  laws  through  the 


^See  the  excellent  presentation  of  it  in  Hautefeuille,  Des  droits  dcs  nations 
neutres,  3d  ed.,  Paris,  1868,  vol.  1,  pp.  26  et  seq.;  and  Gessner,  Droits  des 
neutres,  Prcliminaires,  pp.  '^   et  seq. 


HEFFTER  113 

ordinance  of  1681  whose  principles  were  increasingly  welcomed,  and 
which,  especially  in  the  Utrecht  treaty  of  peace,  were  given  a  wider 
international  application."^  Toward  the  end  of  the  past  century,  during 
the  revolutionary  wars  in  North  America  and  in  France,  the  reaction 
became  even  more  pronounced.  In  1778  France  issued  new  regulations 
in  favor  of  neutral  navigation ;  soon  thereafter  in  1780,  with  the  help  of 
Panin,  a  northern  Minerva  created  the  system  of  the  armed  neutrality.*^ 
Shortly  afterwards  was  secured  the  accession  thereto  of  several  mari- 
time Powers  for  the  application  of  definite  principles  with  regard  to 
the  British  trident,  and  through  which,  although  the  alliance  as  first 
formed  was  again  dissolved,  certain  contractual  concessions  were 
wrung  from  her.^ 

The  last  struggle  against  the  British  system  was  directed  by  Napo- 
leon through  the  creation  of  the  continental  system  which,  if  it  had 
been  carried  out  against  the  allies,  with  inflexibility  and  wise  modera- 
tion, and  if  it  had  led  to  a  real,  cordial  unity  among  all  the  continental 
Powers,  would  have  been  the  right  weapon,  and  by  its  hateful,  parti- 
san, and  even  venable  execution,  and  at  the  same  time  by  its  repres- 
sion of  all  freedom  in  continental  life,  it  assumed  an  ugly  form  in 
history.  The  idea  of  it,  however,  was  that  of  a  great  man!'  At 
the  time  there  was  no  other  means  available  to  curb  England's 
supremacy  of  the  seas.  But  in  comparatively  recent  times,  in  1853  and 
1854,  the  alliance  of  the  western  Powers  against  Russia  has  led  to  a 
more  generous  practice/  and  the  British  perplexing  need  of  a  cordial 
agreement  with  France  to  the  important  provisions  of  maritime  law 
of  the  Paris  Congress,  April,  1856,  which,  as  has  already  been  said. 
have  been  accepted  unreservedly  by  almost  all  the  remaining  maritime 
Powers. 

•'[Commentary  by  Geffcken  :  It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  history 
of  this  question  begins  with  the  principles  established  in  the  Consolato  del  Mare, 
in  accordance  with  which,  ownership  of  the  merchandise  decides  the  matter. 
England  accepted  these  principles  as  her  practice  in  maritime  law.  France  de- 
parted from  them  through  her  ordinances  of  1538,  1543,  1584  and  1681,  according 
to  which,  enemy  goods,  along  with  the  neutral  ship  transporting  them,  as  well 
as  the  neutral  cargo  under  enemy  flag,  were  subject  to  capture.     "Confiscantur 


^Soetbeer,  Sammlung  oMzicller.  Actenstucke  in  Besug  auf  Schiffahrt  und 
Handel  in  Kriegszeiten,  Hamburg,  1854,  1855.  C.  W.  Ascher,  Beitrdge  zu  einigcn 
Fragen  fiber  die  Verhdltnisse  des  Seehandels  in  Kriegszeiten,  1854.  Drouin  de 
Lhuys,  Les  neutres  pendant  la  guerre  d'Oricnt,  1868.  GefTcken,  Zur  Geschichte 
des  orientalischen  Krieges  1854-56,  Berlin,  1881,  pp.  280  et  seq. 


114  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ex  iiaznbus  res,  ex  rebus  naves."  The  ordonnance  sur  la  marine  royale  of  1681, 
which  for  other  reasons  has  indeed  become  famous,  does  certainly  not  deserve 
here  the  praises  bestowed  upon  it  by  Heffter.  Only  through  treaty,  exceptions 
to  this  ordinance  were  admitted,  as  for  instance,  with  the  Hansa,  May  10,  1615 
and  1655,  according  to  which,  and  in  all  cases,  Hanseatic  ships  and  their  neutral 
cargoes  were  to  be  free.  From  France  and  other  States,  Holland  likewise 
secured  through  treaties,  the  application  of  the  principle  "the  flag  covers  the 
merchandise,"  which  rested  on  no  sound  basis,  for  if  it  is  agreed  that  enemy 
goods  on  friendly  ships  is  free,  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  friendly  goods 
on  board  enemy  ships  is  subject  to  capture.  It  was  a  transaction  which  in  the 
interest  of  their  transportation  of  merchandise  the  Hollanders  carried  through, 
to  secure  for  themselves  its  monopoly  in  time  of  maritime  war  between  other 
Powers.  As  compared  with  this  advantage,  it  was  of  but  slight  importance,  if 
they  recognized  to  the  belligerents  the  right  of  capturing  friendly  goods  on 
enemy  ships.] 

'^ [Commentary  by  Geffcken  :  This  appreciation  of  the  matter  by  Heffter  is  not 
correct;  the  French  maritime  ordinance  of  1681  had  no  effect  upon  the  Utrecht 
treaties  which,  themselves,  were  really  less  important  than  they  seem  to  be  by 
their  text.  Though  at  the  time,  England  and  F'rance  agreed  that  in  a  maritime 
war  which  would  leave  one  of  them  neutral,  its  flag  should  cover  the  enemy 
cargo,  it  was,  as  has  been  observed  by  Gentz,  more  of  a  recognition  in  name 
than  in  fact.  After  the  decline  of  the  Dutch  and  Spanish  sea  power,  England 
and  France  remained  the  two  great  rivals,  and  it  was  quite  improbable  that  a 
maritime  war  would  take  place  which  would  leave  either  the  one  or  the  other 
of  the  two  neutral.  England  was  therefore  most  careful  not  to  admit  the  same 
principle  in  regard  to  Spain,  while  France  did  not  generally  adopt  it  until  she 
issued  her  ordinance  of  July  26,  1778   (Boeck,  p.  58.)] 

'^[Commentary  by  Geffcken:  See  Bergbohm,  Die  bcwaffnctc  Ncutralit'dt  17S0- 
83.  Eine  Entwickelungsphase  des  Volkcrrcchts  im  Seekriege,  1884.  It  gives  for 
the  first  time  a  documentary  presentation  of  the  subject,  and  in  comparison  with 
it,  all  that  which  had  been  written  before  upon  this  matter  seems  rather  anti- 
quated. Lord  Malmesbury's  commentaries  and  F.  Martens'  notes  in  the 
Recueil  des  Traites  conclus  par  la  Russie,  II,  III,  VI,  p.  108,  are  still  worthy  to 
be  read.  Tlie  history  of  the  matter  is,  in  a  few  words,  as  follows :  In  the  war 
between  England  and  her  rebellious  American  colonies,  corsairs  of  tlie  latter 
had  captured  several  English  vessels  on  the  way  to  Archangel.  Catherine  II 
turned  therefore  to  Denmark  with  the  proposal  to  protect  commerce  in  those 
regions  of  the  northern  sea  through  a  common  fleet ;  Count  Bernstorff,  the 
Danish  Minister,  realized  that  this  would  not  be  feasible  according  to  the  law  of 
nations,  and  he  suggested  that  the  intended  common  action  be  extended  by 
establishing  fundamental  principles  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  neutral  commerce, 
and  by  obligating  themselves  through  a  treaty  to  defend  these  rights  against 
England.  At  the  time,  the  Empress  was  not  prepared  to  take  this  step,  and  she 
agreed  to  Bernstorff's  idea  only  after  Spain,  under  futile  pretexts,  had  seized 
two  ships  loaded  with  Russian  grains.    Panin,  her  Minister,  drafted  a  declaration 


HEFFTER  115 

which  reproduced  Bernstorff's  proposals  almost  literally,  and  these  were  sanc- 
tioned through  treaties  with  Denmark  and  Sweden,  dated  July  9  and  August  1, 
1780,  respectively.  The  declaration  was  acceded  to  subsequently  by  the  Nether- 
lands, Prussia,  Austria,  the  Two  Sicilies,  Portugal,  France  and  the  United  States. 
The  first  declaration  by  Russia  is  dated  February  28,  1780;  it  was  really  the 
work  of  Bernstorff.     .     .     . 

It  is  true  that  the  contracting  Parties,  and  Russia  especially,  renounced  subse- 
quently the  principles  which  they  had  established  and  regarded  as  the  palladium 
of  the  neutrals.  In  spite  of  this  fact,  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  retained  its 
great  importance.  Once  at  least  and  with  the  single  exception  of  England,  the 
most  important  States  had  agreed  upon  a  formal  construction  of  the  laws  of 
maritime  warfare,  while  England,  although  she  did  not  formally  surrender  any 
one  of  her  principles,  had,  nevertheless,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  to  be  regardful 
of  the  members  of  the  alliance,  not  to  make  any  more  enemies  for  herself.] 

e[Commentary  by  Geff cken  :  In  the  peace  with  France,  1783,  England  simply 
renewed  the  provisions  of  the  Utrecht  treaty,  but  refused  to  grant  them  to 
Holland  to  which  tliey  had  been  applicable  since  1634,  and  to  the  United  States. 
The  French  revolutionary  wars  led  soon  again  to  the  ancient  abuses.  The 
coalition  Governments  forbade  the  neutrals  to  carry  to  France  provisions  and 
merchandise  of  foreign  origin.  The  National  Convention  acted  even  so  and  on 
May  9,  1793,  abolished  the  principle  that  the  flag  covers  the  cargo.  In  1794, 
England  declared  that  neutrals  might  ship  only  their  native  products,  and  not 
those  of  other  countries.  France  declared  every  ship  legitimate  prize,  though  it 
were  only  in  part  loaded  with  English  goods,  no  matter  to  whom  the  latter 
belonged.  In  1800,  the  Baltic  States  renewed  and  completed  the  principles  of 
the  armed  neutrality.  The  most  important  event  of  those  years  is  the  treaty 
between  England  and  Russia,  June  17,  1801,  which  may  be  designated  as  the 
extreme  limit  of  the  concessions  of  England  (Article  3,  post,  p.  597),  and  for  this 
reason,  it  was  vigorously  attacked  in  the  English  Parliament  as  a  weakening 
of  English  rights,  even  though  England  refused  by  it  to  recognize  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  flag  covers  the  cargo.  The  treaty  was  not  of  long  duration,  for 
in  consequence  of  her  declaration  of  war  against  England  in  1807,  Russia 
redeclared  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  to  which  England  answered 
"His  Majesty  proclaims  anew  those  principles  of  maritime  law  against  which 
the  armed  neutrality  was  originally  directed"  {post,  p.  638).  In  1809,  Russia 
renounced  the  aforementioned  principles,  issuing  an  ukase,  August  1,  with  orders 
to  seize  enemy  goods  under  neutral  flag  and  the  ship  as  well,  in  case  the  goods 
represented  more  than  one-half  of  the  value  of  the  cargo.] 

f  [Commentary  by  GeflFcken  :  This  praise  bestowed  upon  the  continental  system 
which  aimed  at  controlling  the  seas  through  the  land,  seems  little  warranted; 
that  which  Heffter  regards  as  the  outgrowth  of  that  system  is  predicated  by  the 
very  nature  of  it.  He  did  more  harm  to  the  Continent  than  to  England,  whose 
commerce  expanded  constantly,  in  spite  of  the  seven  year  blockade,  and  gave  her 
the  monopoly  of  the  seas.  The  United  States  alone  opposed  the  claims  of 
England  and  declared  war  against  her  in   1812.] 


116  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

KATCHENOVSKY:  Price  Law:  particularly  with  reference  to  the 
Duties  and  Obligations  of  Belligerents  and  Neutrals.  Translated 
from  the  Russian  by  Frederic  Thomas  Pratt.    London,  1867. 

Dmitrii  Ivanovich  Katchenovsky.  Russian  publicist;  born  in  1827;  died  in 
1872;  professor  of  international  law  at  the  University  of  Kharkov.  Professor 
Katchenovsky  is  well  knov/n  in  the  literary  circles  of  the  Continent  for  the  ex- 
tent and  accuracy  of  his  attainments  and  is  the  author  of  several  learned  and 
interesting  works,  most  of  which  were  written  between  1855  and  1865.  He  lived 
abroad  from  1858-59  and  delivered  two  important  lectures  in  England  which 
attracted  the  attention  of  jurists,  and  he  was  a  promoter  of  Western-European 
ideas  and  much  interested  in  political  reforms  in  Russia.  In  1864,  his  health 
failing,  he  devoted  himself  to  art,  in  which  he  had  always  been  interested,  and  he 
became  curator  of  Kharkov  University  museum  of  fine  arts,  founded  chiefly 
through  his  efforts 

Among  his  writings  may  be  mentioned :  A  view  of  the  history  of  political 
sciences  in  Europe.  1859;  The  present  state  of  political  sciences  in  Western 
Europe  and  in  Russia,  1862 ;  and  an  article  entitled  Progress  of  the  science  of 
international  law  in  Germany  and  England,  1856. 


Page  6i. — In  the  year  1776  commenced  the  memorable  struggle 
between  England  and  the  United  States  of  America.  Experience 
proves  that  civil  wars  are  particularly  cruel,  and  are  seldom  conducted 
on  any  principle  of  justice  or  international  law.  Consequently,  in 
order  to  remove  all  pretexts  on  the  part  of  the  belligerents  for  the 
oppression  of  commerce,  the  neutral  Powers  hastened  to  publish 
decrees  in  the  same  spirit,  enjoining  their  subjects  under  fear  of  pun- 
ishment to  observe  strict  impartiality  in  that  war.  But  these  measures 
were  to  no  purpose,  as,  amongst  the  belligerents,  France  alone  made 
any  perceptible  modification  in  her  former  practice  about  neutral  trade, 
whilst  Spain  openly  avowed  her  intention  of  acting  towards  the  neu- 
trals in  the  same  way  as  they  allowed  the  English  to  treat  them.  Great 
Britain  returned  to  her  former  system,  and,  taking  advantage  of  the 
internecine  character  of  the  war,  endeavored  wholly  to  suppress  neutral 
commerce.  Regarding  her  enemies  as  rebels,  and  their  allies  as  abet- 
tors of  civil  war,  she  forbade  all  nations  to  have  any  connection  with 
her  former  colonies.  The  English  privateers,  taking  advantage  of  this 
feeling  on  the  part  of  their  Government,  and  in  the  hope  of  all  their 
captures  being  condemned  as  prizes,  attacked  every  suspicious  looking 
vessel  they  encountered.     It  must  be  added  that  the  list  of  contraband 


KATCHENOVSKY  11/ 

goods  was  considerably  enlarged,  and  the  definition  of  blockade  ren- 
dered still  more  vague  at  that  time.  Marriott,  then  judge  of  the 
admiralty  court,  laid  down  the  following  principles  of  maritime  war 
as  immutable:  1.  The  belligerent  has  a  right  to  seize  on  board  neutral 
ships  everything  which  might  be  made  use  of  by  the  enemy  for  his 
defense.  2.  Great  Britain,  lying  between  the  German  Sea  and  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  forms,  by  its  very  position,  a  natural  blockade  to  all 
the  ports  of  France  and  Spain.  3.  The  rights  of  neutral  nations  de- 
pend on  the  customs  or  practice  of  the  belligerents ;  treaties  are  but 
temporary  privileges,  valid  only  as  long  as  the  admiralty  court  finds 
it  convenient  to  make  use  of  them.  The  effect  of  this  prize  practice 
threatened  ruin  to  neutral  commerce,  since  it  was  evident  that  England 
would  allow  no  maritime  law  but  her  own  to  be  enforced.  Happily, 
however,  international  justice  at  that  time  found  powerful  supporters 
in  other  parts  of  Europe ;  for,  from  the  year  1780,  Russia  formed 
with  seven  other  Powers  a  strong  coalition,  which  checked  the  violence 
of  privateers,  and  secured  the  rights  of  neutrality.^ 

There  was  no  difficulty  in  the  allies  agreeing  upon  fundamental 
principles  :  they  resolved — 

1.  Only  to  permit  the  seizure  of  neutral  vessels  where  the  duties 
of  neutrality  had  been  unquestionably  violated. 

2.  To  require  from  the  belligerents  that  judicial  proceedings  against 
neutrals  should  be  commenced  without  delay,  and  in  accordance  with 
an  uniform,  clear,  and  legal  system. 

3.  In  case  of  neutrals  having  unjustly  suffered,  to  compel  the  bellig- 
erents not  only  to  pay  damages,  but  also  to  make  compensation  for  the 
insult  offered  to  the  neutral  flag,  otherwise  to  have  recourse  to  reprisals. 

4.  To  adopt  these  rules  as  the  principle  of  a  future  maritime  code 
(Code  Maritime  Universal). 

The  armed  neutrality  soon  succeeded  in  its  object,  and  put  an  end 
to  the  irregularities  of  the  admiralty  courts.  France.  Spain,  Hol- 
land and  the  United  States  revoked  their  former  decrees,  and  pub- 
lished new  ones  in  conformity  wath  the  declaration  of  the  Empress 
Catherine.^     Great  Britain  herself  was  at  last  obliged  to  vield  to  the 


''Post,  p.  273.     See  Additional  Note  at  end  of  this  Period,  post,  p.  123. 

-The  French  Government  had  already  in  the  year  1780  directed  their  admiral 
and  privateers  not  to  molest  neutrals,  even  though  apparently  destined  to  enemy's 
ports,  and  in  no  case  to  capture  them,  unless  they  had  a  cargo  of  war  contraband, 
or  were  engaged  in  the  transport  of  English  troops,  or  harbored  Englishmen 
under  a  neutral  flag.     Code  des  prises,  vol.  2,  pp.  866-868,  875,  886;  Martens, 


118  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

influence  of  this  powerful  coalition,  and  mitigated,  though  not 
avowedly,  the  severity  of  her  prize  laws.^  One  of  the  best  results  of 
the  coalition  was  the  diminution  of  privateers,  according  to  the  testi- 
mony of  a  contemporary,  who  says,  "At  the  end  of  the  war  privateer- 
ing had  almost  disappeared,  and  neutral  commerce  flourished  almost 
as  much  as  in  a  time  of  profound  peace."- 

At  the  conference  of  Versailles,  the  commercial  treaty  of  Utrecht 
was  again  renewed  by  England,  France,  and  Spain;  but  knowing  by 
experience  that  such  renewals  were  of  little  practical  utility,  and  fear- 
ing that  the  belligerents  would  return  to  their  former  malpractices,  the 
members  of  the  "armed  neutrality"  resolved  to  proceed  with  the  work 
which  had  been  so  successfully  commenced.  Accordingly  the  prin- 
ciples of  1780  were  more  fully  developed,  and  having  been  introduced 
nearly  by  all  the  nations  of  Europe  into  their  commercial  treaties  and 
alliances,  found  support  even  in  America.  In  the  course  of  the  next 
ten  years,  namely,  from  the  peace  of  Versailles  to  the  year  1793,  meas- 
ures were  taken  and  rules  laid  down  in  order  to  reform  the  prize  law 
of  the  belligerents,  and  to  secure  the  independence  of  neutrals  at  sea. 
Reviewing  the  treaties  of  that  time^  we  find  in  them  some  important 
clauses  concerning  the  right  of  visitation  (visite),  evidence  in  prize 
courts,  and  the  legal  forms  of  proceeding. 

1.  Visitation.  The  declaration  of  1780  made  no  mention  of  the  right 
of  search,  and  as  long  as  the  "armed  neutrality"  remained  a  powerful 
coalition,  privateers  did  not  venture  upon  a  search  or  any  other  irreg- 


Recueil.  vol.  3,  p.  163.  The  Dutch  decree  of  1781  also  adopts  the  principles  of 
the  armed  neutrality.  Martens,  Mcrkwilrdige  Fdlle,  vol.  2,  p.  313,  Article  42.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  Spain  and  of  the  United  States  of  America,  whose  decrees 
are  to  be  found  in  Martens,  Recucil,  vol.  3,  p.  161 ;  Wheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  1, 
p.  367. 

^In  the  years  1781-2,  secret  instructions  were  given  to  the  English  privateers, 
to  the  effect  that  they  should  carefully  abstain  from  coUision  with  neutrals. 
With  respect  to  Russian  ships,  England  showed  no  intention  to  enforce  visitation, 
as  we  may  conclude  from  the  letter  of  Lord  Malniesbury  to  Count  Panin.  See 
Lord  Malmcsbxiry's  Diary  and  Correspondence,  London,  1845,  vol.  1,  pp.  232,  319, 
410.  The  Cabinet  of  St.  James,  however,  never  formally  recognized  the  armed 
neutrality,  but  made  every  effort  in  its  power  to  dissolve  the  coalition.  Of  the 
English  statesmen  Fox  alone  did  not  agree  with  his  fellow-countrymen,  and  even 
intended  afterwards  to  conclude  with  Holland,  through  the  mediation  of  Russia, 
a  treaty  of  peace  on  the  principles  of  1780.  Lord  Malmesbury,  vol.  4,  pp.  25,  26, 
42,  53;  Wheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  1,  pp.  367,  368. 

-See  Dohm,  Dcnkxviirdigkeitcn  meiner  Zeit,  Lemgo,  1815,  S.  153.  See  also 
Busch.  284. 

^The  treaties  of  1783-1793,  in  which  are  developed  and  explained  the  principles 
of  the  "armed  neutrality,"  are  to  be  found  in  the  3rd  and  4th  volumes  of  the 
collection  of  Martens. 


KATCHENOVSKY  119 

ular  proceedings.  In  order  to  prevent  at  a  future  time  a  repetition  of 
such  abuses,  the  treaties  (1783-1793)  generally  assume  that  visitation 
ought  to  be  confined  to  the  verification  of  the  papers ;  while  search, 
breaking  open  coffers,  interrogating  the  crew,  etc.,  are  all  strictly  for- 
bidden to  privateers.  However,  if  on  board  the  ship  there  are  not 
found  any  papers,  the  privateer  may,  with  the  concurrence  or  at  least 
in  the  presence  of  the  owner  or  master,  put  a  seal  upon  the  cargo, 
make  an  inventory  of  it.  and  bring  the  ship  into  a  port  of  his  own 
country.  Search  then  can  only  be  made  in  the  presence  of  an  officer  of 
the  admiralty  court,  and  immediately  before  the  commiencement  of 
the  suit.  A  neutral  subject,  on  board  of  whose  ship  are  found  con- 
traband goods,  may  deliver  them  up  to  the  privateer,  and  is  entitled  to 
continue  his  voyage  with  the  rest  of  the  cargo  without  molestation.' 
The  declaration  of  1780  is  also  silent  on  the  question,  whether  a  ship 
sailing  under  neutral  convoy  is  free  from  visitation,  but  shortly  after 
the  establishment  of  the  "armed  neutrality,"  England  and  Sweden 
entered  into  an  angry  discussion  on  that  subject,  whereupon  the  Swed- 
ish Government  addressed  a  note  to  that  of  Russia,  to  ask  its  opinion 
upon  the  point,  and  received  for  answer,  that  the  subjecting  of  ships 
under  convoy  to  visitation  would  be  insulting  to  the  national  flag ;  and 
that  cruisers  or  privateers  of  the  belligerents  ought  to  be  satisfied  con- 
cerning the  neutral  character  of  the  ship  and  cargo,  with  the  verbal 
information  of  the  officer  in  command.  This  opinion  of  the  Russian 
Court  met  with  general  approbation,  and  being  considered  as  one  of 
the  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality"  was  inserted  in  almost  all  the 
treaties  of  that  time  from  the  year  1782.- 

2.  The  evidence  in  prize  cases  is,  according  to  treaties,  the  ship's 
papers,^  namely,  passport,  and  documents  about  the  nature  and  destina- 
tion of  the  cargo.  As  to  the  ownership  of  the  cargo  the  neutral  is  not 
bound  to  have  documents  relating  to  that,  because  the  property,  even 
of  an  enemy,  is  considered  free  under  a  neutral  flag  (frei  Schiff,  frci 


^With  respect  to  the  treaties  of  the  United  States  with  Holland  (1782),  and 
of  Russia  with  Denmark  (1782)  and  Austria  (1785),  see  Martens,  vol.  3,  pp.  427, 
468;  4,  p.  72,  etc.  The  same  principles  are  adopted  in  a  treaty  between  France 
and  England   (1786).     Martens,  vol.  4,  p.  155. 

-Martens,  Mcrhzi'iirdige  Fdllc,  vol.  2,  pp.  35-8.  Here  also  we  may  refer  to  the 
treaties  of  Russia  with  Denmark,  and  of  the  United  States  with  Holland  (1782), 
of  Russia  with  Austria  (1785),  also  with  France,  the  kingdom  of  both  the 
Sicilies  and  Portugal  (1787),  and  of  Prussia  with  the  United  State,  of  America. 
Martens,  Rccueil.  vol.  4,  pp.  72,  196,  229,  315. 

'See  particularlv  treaties  of  United  States  with  Holland  (1782),  with  Prussia 
(1785),  and  of  England  with  France   (1786). 


120  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Gilt).  The  passport,  which  is  not  usually  given  for  more  than  two 
years,  and  should  be  renewed  on  the  return  of  the  ship  to  its  own 
country,  ought  to  contain  the  name  of  the  ship  and  of  its  owner,  as 
well  as  the  domicile  of  the  master,  which  is  to  be  duly  particularized. 
Prize  courts  formerly  condemned  all  ships  built  in  the  country  of  the 
enemy,  and  purchased  by  neutrals  in  the  time  of  war,  without  admitting 
any  excuse  in  justification.  The  "armed  neutrality"  endeavored  to  put 
an  end  to  this  practice,  though  the  different  Governments  did  not  come 
to  an  agreement,  without  a  long  discussion  as  to  the  alterations  which 
should  be  introduced  into  the  maritime  law  on  this  subject.  The  points 
in  dispute,  however,  were  at  last  settled,  by  empowering  the  neutral  to 
order  ships  to  be  built  in  the  country  of  an  enemy  on  his  own  account, 
or  to  purchase  those  already  built,  and  the  belligerent  was  bound  to 
admit,  as  conclusive  proof,  the  bill  of  sale.  To  this  was  added  that  the 
subject  of  an  enemy  who  had  been  naturalized,  or  who  was  employed 
in  the  service  of  a  neutral  Power,  should  enjoy  the  rights  of  a  neutral.^ 
3.  With  respect  to  the  manner  of  conducting  legal  proceedings  in 
prize  cases,  the  treaties  of  1783-93  contained  but  few  rules;  they  only 
require  that  cases  between  privateers  and  neutrals  should  be  settled 
impartially,  without  delay,  and  in  conformity  with  international  justice. 
Should  the  judgment  be  considered  unjust  or  oppressive,  diplomatic 
agents  are  entitled  to  intervene  in  behalf  of  their  fellow-countrymen, 
and  to  bring  the  case  before  the  court  of  appeal.^  A  privateer,  having 
captured  a  neutral  ship  without  sufficient  grounds,  is  held  liable  to 
damages  to  the  injured  party;  but  unfortunately  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation is  nowhere  determined  in  treaties ;  Holland  and  the  United 
States  alone  have  laid  down  carefully  defined  rules  on  the  subject, 
namely,  that  the  privateers  shall  repay  all  the  legal  expenses,  and  a 


^See  treaties  mentioned  in  notes,  pp.  64,  65.  In  the  treaty  between  England 
and  France  (1786)  we  find  the  following  rules  relating  to  prize  courts.  "Si 
quelque  navire  niarchand  se  trouvait  depourvu  de  ses  lettres  de  mer  ou  de  certifi- 
cat,  il  pourra  ttre  examine  par  le  juge  competent,  de  fagon  cependant  que  par 
d'autres  indices  et  documents  il  se  tronve  qu'il  appartienne  veritablement  aux 
sujets  de  I'un  des  dits  souverains,  et  qu'il  ne  contienne  aucune  marchandise 
destinee  pour  I'ennemi,  il  ne  devra  point  etre  confisque  mais  sera  relache  avec  sa 
charge." 

-In  addition  to  the  treaties  already  cited,  reference  may  be  made  to  that 
between  Denmark  and  Genoa  (1789),  in  which  the  influence  of  the  "armed 
neutrality"'  is  apparent.  Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  4,  p.  438.  Denmark  and  Genoa 
imposed  upon  their  consuls  the  duty  of  defending  neutrals  in  the  prize  court, 
and  appointed  advocates  for  the  same  purpose;  it  was  also  agreed,  when  the 
evidence  of  neutrals  and  captors  was  conflicting,  to  give  the  preference  to  the 
former,  "parceque  I'interet  du  capteur  doit  toujours  rendre  ses  accusations 
suspectes."    This  remarkable  rule,  however,  does  not  occur  in  other  treaties. 


KATCHENOVSKY  121 

percentage  for  iucrum  cessans  to  the  owner,  and  all  persons  who  may 
suffer  from  the  illegal  capture.^  All  the  above-mentioned  treaties  are 
imbued,  so  to  say,  with  one  and  the  same  spirit,  having  a  tendency  to 
lessen  the  cruelties  of  maritime  war,  to  put  an  end  to  the  illegal  plun- 
der of  neutrals  by  privateers,  and  to  mitigate  the  harsh  decrees  of 
prize  courts.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  authors  of  the  "armed  neu- 
trality," even  when  belligerents,  adhered  to  their  principles.  As  an 
instance  we  may  cite  the  ordonnance  of  the  Empress  Catherine  on 
privateers  (1787),  issued  on  the  occasion  of  the  war  with  Turkey, 
which,  being  in  perfect  conformity  with  the  declaration  of  the  Empress 
in  1780,  is,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Hautefeuille,  one  of  the  most 
liberal  decrees  ever  published  by  a  belligerent.  The  Empress  pre- 
scribed to  privateers  the  courtesy  due  to  neutrals,  and  greatly  restricted 
the  right  of  visitation,  confining  it  to  particular  seas.-  Sweden  in  the 
decree  of  1788  also  sanctioned  the  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality," 
and  conformed  her  prize  jurisprudence  thereto.^  The  declaration,  how- 
ever, of  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg,  published  at  the  end  of  the  war 
with  Sweden  (May  6,  1789),  was  much  more  extraordinary,  for 
therein  the  B^mpress  promised  the  protection  and  the  assistance  of  the 
Russian  fleet  to  the  merchants  of  all  neutral  nations.*  Thus  the  free- 
dom of  neutral  commerce  became  every  year  more  prevalent  in  Europe, 
and  naval  wars  were  greatly  mitigated.  Some  States  found  it  even 
advantageous  to  put  an  end  to  privateering.  The  first  attempt  to  that 
efifect  was  made  by  the  United  States  of  America  in  a  treaty  with 


^By  the  clauses  of  this  treaty  the  rights  of  neutral  merchants  in  the  prize 
courts  are  fully  secured.  Martens  is  perfectly  right  in  observing,  that  neutral 
merchants  can  not  be  considered  as  compensated  by  the  mere  payment  for  the 
cargo  plundered  and  injured,  but  are  also  fully  entitled  to  an  indemnity  for 
what  might  have  been  gained,  if  the  vessel  had  in  due  course  reached  its  place 
of  destination  {lucrum  cessans).  Essai.  s.  30,  p.  95.  Other  treaties  abrogate 
some  unreasonable  contributions  imposed  on  neutrals,  as,  for  example,  fees  or 
other  duties.  Martens  also  gives  a  full  account  of  the  conventions  relating  to 
prize  jurisdiction  of  that  time,  and  of  the  decrees  on  that  subject. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  4,  p.  i2)6.  However,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  that  war 
the  Greeks,  and  not  native  subjects  of  Russia,  received  letters  of  marque  from 
the  Empress.  In  the  first  war  with  Turkey  (1767-74)  Russia  had  not  recourse 
to  privateering.     Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  2,  pp.  32,  ZZ ;  Essai,  p.  46,  s.  9. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  4,  pp.  394—410.  In  this  decree  Sweden  admitted  the 
immunity  of  the  neutral  flag,  and  exempted  from  visitation  ships  proceeding 
under  neutral  convoy.  Only  in  the  definition  of  war  contraband  does  the  decree 
not  altogether  correspond  with  the  declaration  of  1780:  for  instance,  it  includes 
in  the  list  of  prohibited  goods,  besides  arms  and  ammunition,  money,  but  the 
Swedish  king,  in  consequence  of  a  protest  from  several  powers,  subsequently 
revoked  this  decree,  and  returned  to  the  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality." 

*Ihid.,  p.  428. 


122  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

Prussia,  in  which  also  the  right  of  seizure  of  war  contraband  was 
modified  into  that  of  preemption  (droit  de  preemption)}  The  question 
of  the  aboHtion  of  privateering  was  subsequently  taken  up  by  France.- 
Unfortunately  these  humane  projects  were  not  destined  to  be  carried 
into  effect,  for  in  1793  there  commenced  in  Europe  a  long  revolu- 
tionary war,  which  threw  all  international  relations  into  confusion, 
almost  annihilated  the  political  institutions  of  Europe,  and  shook  to  its 
foundation  the  very  idea  of  neutrality. 

Additional  Note  by  the  Author 
Page  63 

In  a  juridical  work  like  the  present,  the  "armed  neutrality"  is  chiefly 
considered  in  its  effects  upon  treaties  and  international  customs ;  as  to 
the  political  events  which  led  to  its  foundation  they  are  recorded  by 
some  contemporaries  of  Catherine  II.  It  would  be  long,  and  even  use- 
less, to  enumerate  here  all  the  books  and  pamphlets  which  give  or 
pretend  to  give  information  on  the  origin  of  this  celebrated  league.  As 
the  chief  authorities  upon  the  subject  may  be  cited  the  memoirs  of 
AI.  Dohm  (De)ikzmirdigkeiten  me'mer  Zeit,  Hannover,  1814-15-18)  ; 
Count  de  Goertz  (Menioires  sur  la  Neutralite  armce,  Basle,  1801,  Paris, 
1804),  and  Sir  James  Harris'  (Lord  Malmesbury)  Diary,  London, 
1845. 

These  diplomatists,  though  differing  from  each  other  in  some  details, 
look  upon  the  whole  affair  nearly  in  the  same  light.  According  to  their 
opinion,  the  declaration  of  1780  arose  out  of  a  court  intrigue,  aimed  at 
the  influence  of  Prince  Potemkin,  the  great  favorite  of  the  Empress, 
and  had  no  other  object  than  to  ruin  his  political  power.  Catherine 
herself  seemed  to  have  been  almost  an  involuntarv  agent  in  the  hands 


^The  treaty  of  1785  was  concluded  by  Franklin,  the  well-known  opponent  of 
privateering.  In  his  opinion,  this  institution  ought  to  be  put  an  end  to  for  the 
good  of  mankind  and  the  maintenance  of  peace.  The  custom  of  plundering 
merchant  ships  is  a  remnant  of  piracy,  it  produces  no  benefit  at  all.  At  the 
commencement  of  a  war.  indeed,  some  rich  ships  may  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
captors  and  be  taken  by  surprise,  but  the  enemy  soon  becomes  more  careful 
and  protects  the  commerce  of  his  subjects  by  strong  convoys.  Consequently 
in  the  course  of  war.  ns  the  number  of  privateers  increases  so  does  the  value 
of  the  captures  diminish. 

-In  1792,  the  F"rench  diplomatic  agents  were  instructed  to  ascertain  how  far 
foreign  nations  were  inclined  to  abolish  privateering.  Unfortunately  the  political 
circumstances  of  that  time  prevented  any  sympathy  or  confidence  being  placed 
in  the  intentions  of  France.  With  the  exception  of  the  Hanseatic  Towns  (which 
made  no  use  of  privateers)  not  a  single  state  of  Europe  responded  to  the  question 
proposed.  See  Biisch,  290,  3;  Ortolan,  Diplomatic  de  la  mer,  vol.  2,  p.  56; 
Cauchy,  Du  respect  de  la  propricte  privec  sur  Mcr,  annexes,  N.  1-4.  As  to  the 
United  States,  they  answered  the  French  communication  favorably,  though  rather 
in  a  vague  manner. 


.    KATCHENOVSKV  123 

of  Count  Panin,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  with  whom  the  scheme 
originated.  The  defense  of  neutral  rights  furnished  this  statesman 
with  a  good  pretext  for  overthrowing  his  rival.  By  giving  full  credit 
to  this  testimony,  and  deriving  all  our  information  from  the  same 
source,  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  authors  of  the  "armed  neutrality" 
hardly  knew  what  they  were  about,  and  that  they  only  became  fully 
aware  of  the  importance  of  their  acts  from  subsequent  events,  and  when 
almost  the  whole  of  Europe  had  acceded  to  the  principles  of  1780. 
Now  all  this  story  seems  to  us,  if  not  a  pure  invention,  at  least  a  great 
misrepresentation  of  the  facts.  The  truth  is  that  the  success  of  the 
Russian  policy  having  excited  great  envy,  the  open  and  secret  enemies 
of  the  "armed  neutrality"  had  recourse  to  every  kind  of  obloquy  and 
literary  abuse,  in  order  to  discredit  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  Conse- 
quently the  most  absurd  rumors,  about  the  authors  of  the  coalition  as 
well  as  their  motives,  were  circulated  abroad,  and  have  been  repeated 
up  to  the  present  time.  However  difficult  it  would  be  to  refute  these 
calumnies  without  access  to  the  State  archives,  where  the  whole  cor- 
respondence relating  to  the  subject  is  deposited,  we  humbly  submit  to 
our  readers  the  following  considerations,  which  are  founded  upon  docu- 
mentary evidence,  or  derived  from  Russian  historians. 

The  first  circumstance  to  be  noticed  is,  that  the  contention  between 
Prince  Potemkin  and  Count  Panin  had  no  such  signification,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  "armed  neutrality,"  as  foreign  diplomatists  seemed  to 
imagine.  The  principal  question  in  dispute  was  the  English  alliance ; 
in  fact,  the  first  of  these  statesmen  strongly  recommended  his  sovereign 
to  take  part  in  the  American  war ;  the  second,  on  the  other  hand, 
advised  her  to  stand  aloof  from  the  great  conflict,  wherein  she  would 
be  no  gainer,  and  might  lose  the  advantage  of  being  appealed  to  as  an 
impartial  mediator.  As  long  as  the  Empress  hesitated  to  avow  her 
decision  on  the  best  course  to  be  pursued,  the  opportunity  for  a  neutral 
league  was  necessarily  delayed.  It  may  be  also  easily  understood  why 
the  Cabinet  of  St.  Petersburg  kept  all  these  proceedings  a  secret  from 
the  English  Minister,  whose  connections  with  Potemkin  were  probably 
as  well  known  to  Catherine  as  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs.  It 
must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  declaration  of  1780  burst  forth 
as  the  feat  of  a  skilful  courtier,  devised  to  injure  a  rival.  We  have 
every  reason  to  believe  that  this  act  had  been  long  in  preparation,  before 
the  Empress  found  a  favorable  opportunity  for  offering  it  to  Europe, 
as  the  most  efficient  measure  against  the  violence  of  belligerents.  Some 
diplomatic  papers  of  that  time,  published  from  the  State  archives  of 
St.  Petersburg  a  few  years  ago  (see  the  Maritime  Magazine,  or  the 
Morskoi  Shornik  for  1859,  Nos.  9-12),  prove  that  the  seizure  of  Rus- 
sian merchandise  near  Cadiz  by  Spanish  cruisers  was  only  the  last  of 
many  grievances  reported  to  Catherine  by  her  Ministry.  From  the  very 
beginning  of  the  war  the  atrocities  of  privateers  induced  the  Russian 
Government  to  take  serious  measures  for  the  protection  of  commerce. 
Thus  in  1778,  when  American  cruisers  made  their  first  appearance  in 


124  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  northern  seas,  the  Empress  gave  orders  that  a  squadron  should  be 
stationed  near  Archangel  to  convoy  English  traders.  Soon  afterwards 
Catherine  represented  to  Denmark  and  Sw^eden  the  urgent  necessity 
of  common  action  against  cruisers  in  the  Baltic  (Lettres  du  Comte 
Panin  a  M.  Sacken,  Charge  d'Afifaires  a  Copenhague,  16  Aout,  1778, 
at  note  du  Comte  Bernstorff,  28th  Sept.,  1778).  It  is  remarkable,  how- 
ever, that  Count  Panin,  by  recommending  the  Empress  to  declare  in 
London  and  Paris  her  firm  intention  to  close  the  entrance  of  the  north- 
ern sea  to  all  cruisers,  prevented  at  that  time  all  further  proceedings 
against  belligerents,  and  this  declaration  appeared  to  him  quite  suffi- 
cient for  the  purpose.  In  the  confidential  report  addressed  by  the  Count 
to  Catherine,  and  approved  by  her  on  the  22d  Dec,  1778,  we  observe 
that  his  intentions  were  then  not  so  hostile  to  England  as  Sir  James 
Harris  expected.  The  dangers  of  a  breach  with  Great  Britain  are 
therein  set  forth  without  reserve.  The  Russian  Minister  submits  to 
his  sovereign  the  future  line  of  conduct  to  be  adopted  towards  bellig- 
erents. In  his  opinion  the  question  of  neutral  rights,  being  very  intri- 
cate, great  moderation  and  circumspection  were  requisite  to  be  used  in 
dealing  with  it.  He  strongly  recommends  that  Russia  should  attend  to 
her  own  interests,  and  avoid  a  close  alliance  with  her  Baltic  neighbors 
upon  that  question.  Thus  a  cooperation  with  Sweden  appears  to  Count 
Panin  not  desirable  for  many  reasons.  "The  Swedish  policy  of  defend- 
ing neutral  rights,"  says  he,  "may  cause  us  great  difficulties,  and  involve 
our  Government  in  a  disastrous  war  with  the  greatest  maritime  Power 
of  Europe."  Accordingly,  when  the  Cabinet  of  Stockholm  in  1779 
made  the  first  proposals  for  a  treaty  to  that  effect,  they  were  declined 
by  Catherine.  In  short,  the  documents  we  have  cited  here  give  us  no 
indication  whatever  that  Count  Panin  was  the  real  author  of  the 
"armed  neutrality."  On  the  contrary,  the  spirit  of  the  declaration  of 
1780  seems  not  to  be  in  accordance  with  his  former  views  as  well  as 
with  his  general  conduct  as  Minister  for  Foreign  Afifairs.  We  are  more 
inclined  to  think  that  the  new  scheme  of  neutral  policy  was  originally 
devised  by  the  Empress  herself.  The  first  precedent  for  it  she  might 
have  found  in  the  convention  of  1759  mentioned  before.  It  must  be 
added  that  her  various  reading  and  intercourse  with  foreign  diplo- 
matists made  her  better  prepared  to  conduct  the  foreign  affairs  of  Rus- 
sia, according  to  her  own  enlightened  views,  than,  like  some  other  sov- 
ereigns, to  follow  the  advice  of  her  council.  In  fact,  the  political 
talents  and  literary  accomplishments  of  Catherine  are  so  well  known, 
that  they  afford  sufficient  grounds  for  our  adhering  to  that  opinion. 
Many  important  state  papers  were  the  production  of  her  mind  and  pen. 
The  authenticity  of  her  correspondence  with  Voltaire  is  undoubted,  and 
was  never  disputed.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  "General  Instruction 
for  the  Government  of  the  Empire."  This  monument  of  the  legisla- 
tive wisdom  of  the  Empress,  having  been  translated  into  foreign  lan- 
guages, is  as  well  known  in  Western  Europe  as  in  Russia.  But  the 
most   improbable  part  of  the   story   about  the  origin  of  the   "armed 


KATCHENOVSKY  125 

neutrality"  is  that  Catherine  when  signing  the  declaration  did  not  un- 
derstand its  meaning.  Whatever  her  faults  might  have  been,  she  was 
perfectly  able  to  appreciate  the  consequences  of  her  political  acts.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  Sir  James  Harris  puts  into  the  mouth  of  one 
of  his  confidants  the  following  remarks  upon  this  new  plan  for  the 
defense  of  neutral  rights :  "the  declaration  is  the  child  of  the  Empress' 
own  brain."  The  five  articles  were  sent  in  the  rough  draft  to  Count 
Panin,  who  made  no  addition  to  the  original ;  see  Lord  Malmesbury's 
Diary,  vol.  i,  p.  266.  The  Count  himself,  who  very  soon  fell  into  dis- 
grace, is  reported  to  have  abjured  all  participation  in  devising  the  prin- 
ciples of  1780.  When  questioned  upon  this  point  he  once  said,  "they 
who  think  that  anybody  suggested  to  the  Empress  the  idea  of  a  neu- 
tral league,  or  has  now  power  enough  to  put  it  out  of  her  head,  are 
greatly  mistaken."  La  Coiir  de  Russie,  il  y  a  cent  ans,  Berlin,  1858,  p. 
253.  All  these  facts  seem  rather  to  corroborate  our  views  than  other- 
wise. However  it  may  be,  we  sincerely  hope  that  the  absurd  fables 
about  a  court  intrigue  will  fall  to  the  ground,  as  soon  as  the  historical 
truth,  contained  in  the  diplomatic  documents,  shall  be  fully  brought  to 
light.  May  this  be  done  by  future  inquiries.  Nothing  but  a  careful 
study  of  the  whole  reign  of  Catherine  can  lead  impartial  men  to  safe 
conclusions  upon  the  "armed  neutrality."  It  will  then  be  easily  adm-tted 
that  its  origin  is  due  as  much  to  the  natural  course  of  events  as  to  the 
liberal  tendencies  of  the  Russian  Empress,  and  the  philosophical  spirit 
of  her  time. 

Pkriou  IV 

From  1793  to  1815 

The  continental  Governments  having,  as  we  have  seen,  agreed  on  the 
fundamental  principles  of  prize  jurisprudence,  had  entertained  the  idea 
of  drawing  up  a  code  of  neutrality;  but  these  intentions,  originating  in 
the  declaration  of  1780,  were  frustrated  by  the  breaking  out  of  the 
French  Revolution.  The  political  events  which  occurred  in  France, 
and  afterwards  in  other  countries,  not  only  prevented  the  further  ex- 
tension of  the  "armed  neutrality,"  but  afforded  a  pretext  to  the  bellig- 
erents for  resuming  their  former  harsh  proceedings.  Consequently 
international  treaties  having  been  rescinded  in  the  midst  of  the  general 
commotion  of  Western  Europe,  admiralty  courts  began  to  oppress 
neutral  merchants  under  the  authority  of  the  severe  instructions  of 
the  belligerents,  and  privateers  not  only  refused  to  acknowledge  the 
immunity  of  the  flag,  but  even  disavowed  the  doctrine  of  the  Consolato 
del  Mare.  In  vain  the  northern  Powers  endeavored  to  form  a  perma- 
nent coalition  for  the  protection  of  their  commerce.  The  league  they 
entered  into  (1800)  only  continued  a  few  months,  and  failed  of  attain- 


126  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ing  the  success  which  attended  the  first  armed  neutrality  at  the  time  of 
the  American  war.  By  the  treaty  of  St.  Petersburg  (1801)  the  allies 
even  made  some  concession  to  England,  and  considerably  modified  the 
principles  of  Catherine  II.  In  general,  during  the  French  revolutionary 
wars,  the  power  of  the  neutral  Governments  diminished,  and  England 
returned  to  the  system  of  the  Middle  Ages  without  opposition.  At  the 
end  of  the  18th  century  the  decisions  of  Sir  Wm.  Scott  (afterwards 
Lord  Stowell),  supported  by  the  British  navy,  were  enforced  on  neu- 
trals. The  English  Government,  however,  failed  in  attaining  an  absolute 
supremacy  at  sea.  When  Napoleon  established  the  continental  system 
(1806)  Sir  Wm.  Scott  was  obliged  to  give  up  the  rules  of  English 
practice,  which  he  had  invariably  followed  before.  In  the  course  of 
time  the  belligerents,  attacking  one  another  with  retaliatory  measures, 
proceeded  to  the  last  extremities,  and  declared  neutral  commerce  unlaw- 
ful, and  even  criminal  in  their  eyes.  In  this  manner,  the  very  idea  of 
neutrality  was,  so  to  say,  repudiated,  and  privateers  as  well  as  prize 
courts  were  converted  into  instruments  of  commercial  inquisition.  Such 
are  the  final  results  of  this  destructive  period.  In  order  to  define  them 
more  accurately,  we  propose  to  direct  our  attention  to  facts^  and  to  lay 
before  the  reader:  1.  The  successive  modifications  of  the  principles  of 
1780.  2.  The  prize  law  of  England  and  France  under  Sir  Wm.  Scott 
and  Portalis.  3.  The  irregular  character  of  privateering  and  prize 
proceedings  at  the  period  of  the  continental  system. 

The  decree  of  the  year  1792,  according  to  which  France  renounced 
privateering,  was  not  carried  out.  Having  declared  war  against  Great 
Britain  the  National  Convention  issued  letters  of  marque,  and  accord- 
ingly many  small  vessels  were  dispatched  for  the  purpose  of  plundering 
ships  engaged  in  commerce.  The  former  laws,  however,  respecting 
maritime  prizes,  and  consequently  the  ordonnances  of  the  year  1778,  were 
confirmed,  and  privateers  received  instructions  to  respect  the  immunity 
of  the  flag.^  In  the  meantime,  England  not  only  refused  to  adopt  the 
principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality,"  but  skilfully  took  advantage  of 
circimistances,  in  order  to  add  to  the  severity  of  maritime  warfare. 
Observing  that  the  enemy  suflFered  for  want  of  provisions,  she  adopted 
what  might  be  called  a  system  of  famine  (systeme  de  famine),  namely, 


^Compare  generally  Comtc  de  Garden,  Histoire  dc  traites.  vol.  6,  pp.  301-381 ; 
Wheaton,  Histoire  du  droit  des  gens,  vol.  2.  pp.  Iv3-106. 

2Sc'e  the  French  ordonnances  respecting  privateers  and  prizes  which  were  pub- 
lished at  this  time,  Martens,  Rerueil,  vol.  5,  pp.  376-400;  6,  pp.  7S2r-776;  L^beau, 
Nouveau  code  des  Prises,  4.     (Paris,  an  IX.) 


KATCHENOVSKY  127 

entered  into  conventions^  with  the  principal  Powers  of  Europe  in  order 
to  forbid  the  importation  of  corn  and  food  into  the  French  ports,  and 
the  carrying  on  of  any  intercourse  with  France.  To  counteract  these 
measures  the  National  Convention  had  recourse  to  retaliation,  and  by 
the  decree  of  May  9th,  1793,  enjoined  cruisers  and  privateers  to  seize 
neutral  vessels  destined  for  England,  laden  with  corn  or  provisions,  or 
freighted  with  English  merchandise.  By  this  decree  English  property 
was  declared  lawful  prize,  and  even  neutral  cargo,  subject  to  the  right 
of  preemption  (droit  de  preemption)  on  the  part  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment. These  arbitrary  rules  were  to  remain  in  force  until  the  interested 
Powers  obtained  from  England  a  strict  observance  of  the  rights  of 
neutrality.  A  few  exceptions  were  made  in  favor  of  Denmark, 
Sweden,  the  United  States  of  America,  and  other  Governments  with 
which  France  had  treaties  of  commerce. " 

For  the  purpose  of  meeting  this  ordonnance  of  the  Convention,  Eng- 
land extended  still  further  the  right  of  preemption,  had  recourse  to  a 
stricter  system  of  blockade,  and  gave  to  privateers  such  instructions 
against  neutrals  as  authorized  them  to  stop  with  impunity  all  merchant 
vessels.^ 

The  Danish  commerce  suffered  particularly  at  this  time.  Up  to  the 
19th  August,  1793,  189  Danish  vessels  had  been  seized,  and  the  com- 
pensation promised  them  for  provisions  was  only  very  reluctantly  paid, 
and  after  much  delay.  In  vain  Count  Bernstorff  attempted,  in  his 
celebrated  memorial,  to  show  to  the  Cabinet  of  St.  James,  that  the 
neutral  Powers  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
war,  and  that,  according  to  the  principles  of  independence,  they  ought 
to  enjoy  undisturbed  the  advantages  of  commerce,  in  the  midst  of  the 
conflict.  To  this  the  English  Government  replied  that  France  had 
placed  herself  out  of  the  pale  of  civilization ;  that  no  Power  could  be 
considered  neutral  with  reference  to  her;  and  that  all  nations  were 
bound  to  take  part  against  her.* 

Having  exhausted  in  conference  all  power  of  persuasion,  Denmark 


1  Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  5,  pp.  439,  473.  483,  487. 

2See  Hautefeuille,  vol.  3,  pp.  276  et  seq. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  5,  pp.  596-605.  Besides  the  Orders  in  Council  of  the  8th 
June  and  6th  Nov.  1793,  according  to  which  England  extended  the  right  of  pre- 
en^ption  to  all  neutrals,  and  made  lawful  prize  the  produce  of  French  colonies, 
privateers  received  also  secret  instructions  very  oppressive  to  general  commerce. 
See  Comte  de  Garden,  vol.  6,  pp.  324,  330. 

*See  the  diplomatic  papers  on  this  subject  in  Martens'  Causes  celebres,  vol.  2, 
pp.  2,2,2-62 ;  Recueil,  vol.  5.  pp.  569,  593. 


128  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

proceeded  to  arm  her  iieet,  and  concluded  with  Sweden  an  alHance  for 
the  protection  of  commerce  (1794).^  About  the  same  time  the  conduct 
of  England  provoked  the  resentment  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
Jefferson,  the  then  Secretary  for  Foreign  Affairs,  resisted  energetically 
the  violence  of  the  privateers,  and  protested  that  the  sale  of  agricultural 
produce  was  always  considered  free ;  that  the  belligerents  were  not 
entitled  to  extend  the  catalogue  of  contraband  on  their  own  authority, 
and  added  that  the  submission  to  that  authority  would  amount  to  the 
surrendering  into  the  hands  of  one  nation  the  commerce  of  the  world. 
Yielding  to  these  remonstrances  England  consented  to  the  appointment 
of  a  mixed  commission,  to  examine  the  claims  of  American  subjects 
to  compensation ;  as  to  the  exertions  of  the  United  States  in  favor  of 
the  immunity  of  the  neutral  flag,  they  remained  unsuccessful.  By  the 
treaty  of  1794  both  Powers  reverted  to  the  principles  of  the  Consolato 
del  Mare,  and  extended  the  catalogue  of  contraband  to  some  articles 
ambigui  usus.^ 

Having  made  such  concessions  to  the  Cabinet  of  St.  James,  the  United 
States  had  no  right  to  expect  that  any  greater  regard  should  be  shown 
to  their  flag  by  the  other  belligerents ;  in  fact,  even  before  the  conclusion 
of  the  treaty  to  which  we  have  alluded,  France  had  complained  that  the 
Americans  permitted  the  English  to  seize  and  condemn  as  lawful  prize 
the  merchandise  of  their  own  subjects;  but  when  the  news  that  the 
treaty  of  1794  was  signed  reached  Paris,  the  French  Government  im- 
mediately had  recourse  to  reprisals,  and  adopted  on  their  side  towards 
the  Americans  the  principles  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  (Decree,  March 
2,  1796).  In  justification  of  which  measures  the  Directory  alleged  the 
following  reasons  1.  According  to  the  treaty  of  1778,  between  France 
and  the  United  States,  it  was  laid  down,  that  all  privileges  granted  by 
one  of  the  contracting  Parties  in  favor  of  a  third  Power  should  belong 
to  the  other  Party.  2.  That  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  them  to 
observe  the  immunity  of  the  flag  with  respect  to  those  nations  who 
renounce  it  of  their  own  accord.  After  this  decree  the  Cabinet  of 
Washington  lost  no  time  in  breaking  off  commercial  relations  with 
France.^ 


^Posi,  p.  440. 

^Post,  p.  443 ;  Wheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  2,  pp.  39-47. 

^Ibid.,  pp.  50,  51 ;  Martens.  Recueil,  vol.  7,  p.  376.  Friendly  intercourse  between 
France  and  the  United  States  was  reestablished  by  the  Morfoniaine  Treaty  in 
the  year  1800.  Ibid.,  p.  484.  By  this  convention  both  parties  reverted  to  the 
former  liberal  principles  of  neutrality,  and  the  immunity  of  the  neutral  flag  was 
again  acknowledged. 


KATCHENOVSKY  129 

Thus  the  example  of  one  beUigerent  acted  upon  the  other,  and  the  old 
system  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  took  the  place  of  more  liberal  princi- 
ples of  neutral  commerce.  The  obstinacy  of  the  belligerents  increased 
every  year,  and  to  all  the  terrors  of  unbridled  privateering  was  added 
oppressive  procedure  in  the  prize  courts.  While  Marriott,  in  England, 
was  inclined  to  support  all  the  abuses  of  belligerents,^  the  French 
Government  referred  cases,  relating  to  maritime  prizes,  to  the  ordinary 
courts  of  law;  and  even  conferred  a  prize  jurisdiction  on  their  consuls 
in  neutral  ports.  The  partiality  of  these  new  judges  reached  its  greatest 
height  at  the  end  of  the  18th  century;  they  called  upon  neutral  ships 
to  produce  all  papers  required  by  the  French  regulations,  without  paying 
any  attention  to  the  difference  of  European  laws  in  that  respect,  and 
considered  every  ship,  which  had  once  belonged  to  the  enemy,  lawful 
prize,  though  she  had  afterwards  been  transferred  to  a  neutral  by  a 
regular  bill  of  sale.' 

In  the  year  1798  the  Directory  published  two  new  decrees,  un- 
precedented in  history  ;  one  of  them  shortened  prize  proceedings  to  such 
a  degree  that  there  was  not  time  enough  for  neutrals  to  bring  forward 
their  evidence  ;  the  other  introduced  a  rule,  whereby  the  character  of  the 
ship  was  to  be  determined  by  the  cargo,  that  is,  it  declared  lawful  prize 
all  neutral  ships  in  which  were  found  any  article  of  English  manufac- 
ture.^   By  the  introduction  of  these  decrees,  international  trade  ceased 


^This  judge  was  the  great  opponent  of  neutral  commerce;  he  did  not  consider 
the  English  customs  sufficiently  severe  in  checking  it,  and  laid  down  in  the 
year  1794  an  extraordinary  rule,  according  to  which  neutral  nations  were  only 
permitted  to  carry  their  own  produce,  and  not  that  of  other  countries.  Jacobsen, 
Seerecht,  i,  preface.  Marriott  defended  this  arbitrary  limitation  of  trade  with 
the  enemy,  on  the  principles  of  the  Navigation  Act,  which  was  then  adopted  by 
many  states  in  imitation  of  England. 

^Several  French  jurists  then,  and  afterwards  some  members  of  the  Directory 
itself,  protested  against  this  unusual  change  introduced  into  prize  practice 
(Lebcau,  vol.  4,  pp.  345,  403-415.)  Portalis  justly  says,  "C'etait  une  grande  erreur 
d'avoir  attribue  la  connaissance  dcs  prises  aux  tribunaux  ordinaires.  Quand  il 
s'agit  de  la  justice  des  nations  entre  elles  ;  quand  il  s'agit  des  droits  de  la  guerre 
et  de  leur  execution  ;  quand  il  faut  peser  les  traites,  decider  si  une  nation  est 
amie  ou  neutre,  on  est  etonne  sans  doute  de  voir  intervenir  une  autre  autorite 
que  celle  du  gouvernement."  According  to  the  custom  of  all  governments  prize 
jurisdiction  belongs  to  special  courts,  established  for  the  purpose.  Pritchard, 
Digest,  vol.  3,  pp.  163,  412;  Wildman,  Instittites,  vol.  2,  pp.  163,  361.  The 
appointment  of  prize  judges  in  neutral  ports  was  also  an  anomaly  contrary  to 
international  law;  besides,  the  consuls,  to  whom  the  Directory  gave  jurisdiction 
in  these  cases,  were,  according  to  Biisch,  often  part  owners  of  the  privateering 
vessels,  and  were  consequently  interested  in  the  condemnation  of  the  neutral 
merchant.     Biisch,  Das  Bestreben  der  Volker,  S.  393. 

^See  Comte  de  Garden,  vol.  6,  pp.  335-337;  Robinson,  vi.  Coll.  2i2.  note:  Biisch, 
3.32-336.  394-411;  Jacobsen,  Seerecht,  69;  Martens,  Recxieil,  vol.  6,  p.  398.     In  a 


130  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

to  have  free  course ;  visitation  degenerated  into  abusive  search,  and 
privateers  became  pirates.  In  answer  to  the  question  of  neutral  mer- 
chants, what  was  to  be  considered  war  contraband?  the  French  pri- 
vateers replied,  "all  that  is  worth  seizing"  (tout  cc  qui  vaut  la  peine 
d'etre  pris). 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality"  were 
abandoned  during  these  revolutionary  wars.  In  fact,  the  United  States 
of  America,  on  the  conclusion  of  a  new  treaty  with  Prussia  in  the  year 
1799,  even  proposed  to  abolish  the  immunity  of  the  flag;  or,  at  least,  to 
postpone  its  acknowledgment  to  a  more  favorable  time.^  Only  Den- 
mark and  Sweden  adhered  to  the  traditions  of  their  policy,  and,  in  order 
to  protect  their  commerce,  resumed  the  practice  of  making  use  of 
convoy.  This  proceeding  was  resisted  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
and,  in  a  short  time,  produced  a  violent  collision.-  Both  the  neutral 
Powers  were  already  on  the  point  of  yielding  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment, when  they  found  an  energetic  supporter  in  the  Emperor  Paul  I. 
Having  been  disgusted  with  the  violent  conduct  of  the  belligerents, 
he  published,  August  15,  1800,  a  declaration  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
establishing an  armed  neutrality ;  and,  finding  Denmark,  Sweden  and 
Prussia  favorable  to  his  views,  signed,  in  conjunction  with  them,  on 
the  4/16  December,  1800,  the  memorable  convention,  in  which,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  principles  of  the  Empress  Catherine  II,  there  were  laid 
down  the  following  rules,  as  being  in  conformity  with  international  law. 

1.  Blockade  is  only  reputed  to  be  broken  by  neutrals  when,  disregard- 
ing the  warning  of  the  belligerent,  they  enter  the  blockaded  port  by 
force  or  fraud.  2.  Neutrals  under  convoy  are  free  from  visitation ;  the 
declaration  of  the  officer  in  command  of  the  convoy  to  be  considered 
sufficient.^ 

Unfortunately  the  second  armed  neutrality  was  not  so  successful  as 


very  short  time  after  the  publication  of  these  decrees  there  were  confiscated 
more  than  300  neutral  vessels,  so  that  merchants  did  not  dare  to  undertake 
a  voyage,  excepting  under  the  protection  of  convoy. 

iWheaton,  Histoire,  vol.  2,  pp.  55-76;  Martens,  Supplement,  vol.  2,  p.  227. 
However  the  right  of  preemption  of  war  contraband  was  confirmed  in  the  new 
treaty.  It  includes,  also  some  liberal  interpretations  of  prize  law.  See  articles 
14,  16,  21,  23. 

^Martens,  Erzdhlungen,  vol.  1,  pp.  229,  302;  2,  pp.  39-58;  Wheaton,  Histoirc. 
vol.  2,  pp.  76-83. 

3For  the  acts  relating  to  the  second  armed  neutrality,  see  Martens,  Supplement, 
vol.  2,  pp.  344-486;  and  Baron  Carl  Martens,  Nouvclles  causes  celcbres,  Leipzig 
1843,  vol.  2,  pp.  176-272;  see  also  Miloutine,  History  of  War  of  1799,  a  work  of 
the  present  Russian  Secretary  of  War  at  St.  Petersburg,  published  in  the  Rus- 
sian language.     He  also  enters  into  the  history  of  the  second  armed  neutrality. 


KATCHENOVSKY  131 

might  have  been  expected.  The  northern  coalition  did  not  last  long, 
and  was  put  an  end  to  by  the  bombardment  of  Copenhagen  and  the 
death  of  the  Emperor  Paul.^ 

On  the  succession  of  Alexander  I  to  the  throne  of  Russia  new  pros- 
pects of  peace  opened  to  the  world.  He  proposed  to  the  Cabinet  of  St. 
James  to  hold  a  conference,  which  should  lay  down  the  fundamental 
principles  of  neutral  commerce;  he  also  promised  to  invite  the  Danish 
and  Swedish  Governments  to  accede  to  them,  and,  in  fact,  on  the  5/17 
June,  1801,  there  was  signed  between  Russia  and  England  a  new  conven- 
tion, in  which  both  parties  made  some  important  mutual  concessions ; 
the  greater  part  however  of  the  regulations  of  the  armed  neutrahty,  such 
as  the  definition  of  war  contraband  and  the  free  access  of  neutral 
merchants  to  the  ports  of  the  belligerent,  remained  unaltered.  With 
respect  to  colonial  trade,  European  merchants  were  placed  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  subjects  of  the  United  States  of  America,  that  is, 
obtained  the  right  to  import  from  the  enemy's  colonies  goods  for  their 
own  use.  But  the  change  in  the  definition  of  blockade,  though  de- 
pendent on  one  word  (or  instead  of  and),  seemed  to  be  more  important.- 
Ships  under  convoy  were  only  exempted  from  the  visitation  of  priva- 
teers. The  principle  that  the  fiag  covers  the  cargo  (le  paznllon  couvre 
la  caro^aison)  was  also  rescinded  on  the  condition  that  enemy  produce 
and  manufactures  {merchandises  du  cru  ou  de  fabriqiie  de  I'ennemi), 
purchased  by  neutral  subjects  and  laden  as  their  own  property,  should 
be  free.  As  additional  articles  to  the  convention  some  clauses  relating 
to  irregularities  and  defects  in  prize  practice  were  introduced.  1.  The 
contracting  Parties  gave  diplomatic  agents  the  right  of  protesting 
against  unjust  decisions,  and  of  bringing  the  case  before  the  highest 
court  of  appeal.  2.  Without  the  consent  of  the  admiralty  judge  it 
was  forbidden  to  unlade  and  sell  the  property  in  dispute  prior  to  its 
being  adjudged  lawful  prize.  3.  If  a  ship  were  arrested  without  suffi- 
cient cause  it  was  stipulated  that  for  every  day's  delay  compensation 
should  be  paid  by  the  privateer.^ 


^Of  treaties  concluded  under  the  second  armed  neutrality  we  can  only  refer 
to  that  between  Russia  and  Sweden,  1st  March.  1801.  Martens,  Supplement, 
vol.  2,  p.  307. 

2Lord  Grenville  himself  says  in  his  speech  that  in  the  armed  neutralit>'  it 
was  required  that  blockading  ships  should  be  in  sufficient  number,  "and  stand 
near  the  port ;"  on  the  contrary,  in  the  convention  of  1801  this  and  was  changed 
into  or.  Lord  Grenville  seems  to  attach  much  importance  to  this  alteration,  and 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  treatv  was  drawn  up.  V.  SubsL  of  Speech,  Nov.  12, 
1801.  pp.  82-3,  London,  1802. 

3The  convention  of  1801  is  inserted  in  Martens. 


132  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

In  the  following  year  the  St.  Petersburg  convention  was  after  some 
hesitation  accepted  by  Sweden  and  Denmark,  but  they  gained  little 
advantage  by  this  vacillating  policy,  as  Great  Britain  paid  no  attention 
to  the  observance  of  the  provisos  she  had  entered  into,  and  finding  the 
convention  too  unfavorable  to  her  interests  used  every  eflfort  to  interpret 
it  according  to  her  own  views. ^  Sweden  soon  afterwards,  yielding  to 
the  demands  of  the  Cabinet  of  wSt.  James,  signed  a  new  convention  with 
England  in  1803,  wherein  the  catalogue  of  war  contraband  was  con- 
siderably enlarged.^ 


KLEEN:  Lois  et  Usages  de  la  Neutralite.    Paris,  1898. 

Rikard  Kleen.  Contemporary  Scandinavian  publicist;  born  in  1841;  studied  at 
the  University  of  Upsala ;  attache  of  the  ministry  of  justice  in  1863;  attache  of 
the  legation  of  Sweden  and  Norway  at  Turin,  and  later  at  Florence ;  chief  of 
division  of  ministry  of  foreign  affairs  at  Stockholm ;  secretary  of  legation  at 
Vienna;  member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law;  member  of  the  Inter- 
national Sanitary  Conference  at  Vienna.  His  publications  include  Ncutralitetcns 
Lagar,  2  volumes,  1889-91,  Krigets  historia  ur  folkrdttslig  synpunkt,  1906,  Kodi- 
ficcrad  handbok  i  krigets  lagar,  1909,  and  Kodificcrad  framst'dllning  i  mellan- 
folklig  Rdtt,  1917. 


iSce  a  curious  pamphlet  by  Jacobsen,  Versuch  eines  Commentars  zu  den 
Russischen  Beschwerden  iiber  die  Beeintrdchtigung  des  Russischen  Handcls  diirch 
England.  Altoona,  1808.  In  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  England  inter- 
preted the  convention  of  1801,  we  quote  from  this  work  the  following  facts. 
When  the  members  of  the  opposition,  Lords  Grenville  and  Howick,  observed  in 
Parliament  that  the  convention  abandoned  the  colonial  and  coasting  trade  to 
neutrals,  the  Minister,  Lord  Sidmouth,  answered,  that  this  was  not  evident  from 
the  words  of  the  treaty,  and  that  the  contracting  Parties  might  enter  into  a  new 
arrangement  about  it.  As  little  foundation  was  there  for  the  statement  of  the 
English  Ministry,  that  the  neutral  Powers  had  shown  their  confidence  in  the 
impartiality  of  the  British  Admiralty  Court,  by  declining  to  insist  upon  any 
conditions  in  favor  of  their  own  subjects;  this  is  indeed  refuted  by  the  supple- 
mentary articles  of  the  treaty.  Sir  William  Scott  also  asserted  that  the  conven- 
tion was  onlj'  applicable  to  Russian  ships,  and  not  to  Russian  produce  found  on 
board  neutral  ships.  In  that  case  he  followed  the  precedents  of  English  practice; 
according  to  this  interpretation,  hemp,  masts  and  some  other  articles,  which 
according  to  the  treaty  were  not  reputed  to  be  contraband,  were  pronounced  by 
the  English  judge  to  be  lawful  prize,  and  that  even  in  those  cases  in  whicli 
the  legality  of  the  neutral  commerce  did  not  admit  of  doubt.  Complaints  were 
also  made  of  delay  in  the  proceedings,  and  that  cases  which  might  have  been 
disposed  of  in  six  months  were  protracted  by  the  court  for  two  or  three  years. 

^-Post,  p.  620. 


KLEEN  133 

Volume  I,  page  20. — In  reference  to  the  question  of  neutrality  the 
year  1780  ushered  in  a  new  era  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  close 
of  the  reign  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare.  It  was  a  period  of  transition 
to  the  new  maritime  law  introduced  by  the  Paris  Congress  of  1856. 
This  period  is  characterized  by  the  endeavors  of  the  States  at  peace 
to  put  an  end  to  the  uncertainty  regarding  the  rights  and  the  duties 
of  neutrals,  to  fill  in  the  gaps  of  the  regulation  of  these  rights  and 
duties  and  to  form  a  union  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  the  arbitrary 
way  in  which  the  greatest  maritime  Power  was  treating  the  neutral 
nations.  It  was  at  this  time  that  there  manifested  itself  that  remark- 
able movement  against  the  oppression  of  a  despotic  marine,  a  move- 
ment whose  initiative  was  due  to  the  alliance  of  the  northern  Powers, 
but  which  was  also  strongly  supported  by  the  insurrection  of  the  great 
transatlantic  colonies  against  British  domination.  The  American  War 
of  Independence  was  a  struggle  like  unto  that  of  the  Baltic  countries 
against  their  common  oppressor.  The  colonies  were  forced,  by  reason 
of  the  identity  of  interest  and  feelings,  to  take  sides  with  the  neutrals 
against  England. 

During  the  North  American  War  of  Independence,  discontent  awak- 
ened by  the  exacting  pretensions  of  the  great  maritime  Powers,  burst 
out  at  last,  and  the  general  sentiments  of  insecurity  produced  a  violent 
reaction.  The  less  powerful  States  realized  that  they  had  to  form  a 
union,  and  to  be  the  better  able  to  oppose  abuses,  the  first  condition 
was  to  reach  an  understanding  with  regard  to  the  essential  points 
As  a  result  there  was  formed  in  1780  the  famous  so-called  "armed 
neutrality"  between  Russia,  Sweden  and  Denmark,  whose  object  it 
was  not  merely  to  determine  the  just  and  reasonable  principles  of 
neutrality  and  to  rally  round  them  all  other  Governments,  but  to  defend 
also  by  armed  force  any  attack  upon  their  rights. 

The  Russian  Government  which  was  joined  in  this  force  by  the 
Scandinavian  States,  formulated  the  new  rules.  These  rules  were  part 
of  a  declaration  which  on  February  28,  1780,  was  transmitted  by  the 
St.  Petersburg  Ministry,  in  the  first  place  to  the  great  western  mari- 
time Powers,  England,  France  and  Spain,  and  later  to  the  rest.  The 
following  five  points  appeared  therein  as  the  future  principles  of 
neutrality : 

1.  Neutral  vessels  may  freely  navigate  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  belonging  to  the  belligerent  States  without  being  detained 
on  their  course; 


134  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

2.  Enemy  merchandise  is  free  under  the  neutral  flag,  excepting  war 
contraband ; 

3.  To  determine  what  shall  be  regarded  as  war  contraband,  refer- 
ence is  made  to  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  concluded  on  June  20, 
1766,  between  Russia  and  England,  which  treaty  shall  have  obligatory 
force  with  regard  to  all  the  belligerents  ;^ 

4.  No  port  shall  be  regarded  as  blockaded  so  long  as  there  is 
no  real  and  effective  danger  in  entering  the  same,  that  is  to  say,  so 
long  as  it  is  not  surrounded,  by  the  Power  which  pretends  to 
forbid  entrance  to  it,  by  means  of  stationary  and  sufficiently  nearby 
vessels  f 

5.  These  principles  are  to  serve  as  rules  in  the  procedures  and  deci- 
sions of  the  prize  tribunals.^ 

As  may  be  judged  from  this,  the  declaration  does  not  in  its  inte- 
grality and  in  clear  terms  establish  the  principles  set  down  in  the 
Utrecht  treaty  that  the  quality  of  the  vessel  determines  the  quality  of 
the  cargo.  To  the  second  proposition  that  "enemy  merchandise  is 
free  under  neutral  flag"  there  is  not  joined  the  correlative  disposition 
that  "neutral  merchandise  is  seizable  under  enemy  flag."  This  was 
also  the  first  time  that  these  two  propositions  which  hitherto  had 
usually  been  joined,  were  no  longer  found  side  by  side.  On  the  other 
hand,  as  nothing  expresses  the  intention  of  separating  them,  it  was 
concluded  that  the  armed  neutrality  probably  meant  purely  and  simply 
to  renew  the  Utrecht  principle  in  this  regard.  There  is  no  lack  of 
good  reasons  in  support  of  this  interpretation.  It  is  a  fact  that  at 
the  time  the  armed  neutrality  was  established,  the  general  practice 
on  the  seas  was  to  leave  property  free  when  under  the  neutral  flag,  with 
the  reservation  of  the  right  to  seize  in  the  contrary  case  neutral  prop- 
erty under  enemy  flag.  But,  if  it  had  been  the  intention  of  doing  away 
with  this  last-mentioned  right,  though  its  presumed  condition  was 
given  form  of  law,  mere  reflection  would  have  required  an  explicit 
stipulation  upon  this  point.  Moreover,  peace  treaties  and  other  re- 
markable conventions  that  have  been   concluded  since   1780  contain 


^The  contraband  articles  specified  in  this  treaty  are  almost  all  (excepting 
saltpeter,  sulphur,  saddles  and  bridles)  of  such  a  nature  as  fits  them  specially 
to  war  use.  The  list  marks  therefore  a  step  in  advance.  It  was  furthermore 
agreed  that  when  a  neutral  vessel  was  transporting  such  articles,  such  quantity 
of  war  ammunition  as  was  deemed  necessary  for  the  needs  of  the  vessel  itself 
should  be  regarded  as  free  and  exempt  from  confiscation. 

^This  rule  was  a  protest  against  fictitious  blockades. 

3An  additional  article  declares  that  the  Baltic  Sea  was  to  be  regarded  as 
closed   waters  v.'ithin  which  acts  of  hostility  were  forbidden. 


KLEEN  135 

anew  the  two  propositions  side  by  side,  in  exact  conformity  with  the 
Utrecht  rule. 

The  declaration  was  transmitted  to  the  neutral  Governments  with  the 
invitation  that  they  adhere  thereto.  This  was  done  successively — apart 
from  Sweden  and  Denmark  which  belonged  to  the  original  alliance — 
by  Holland,  Prussia,  Austria,  Portugal,  the  Two  Sicilies,  and  lastly  by 
France,  Spain  and  the  United  States  of  America.  The  contracting 
Powers  have  all  accepted  the  principles  of  armed  neutrality  with  the 
obligation  not  merely  to  observe  and  respect  these  principles,  but  also 
to  equip  and  maintain  a  fleet  to  uphold  and  defend  them  by  acting  in 
concert  and  in  common.  Furthermore,  within  this  more  enlarged 
league,  Russia,  Sweden  and  Denmark  formed  together  a  more  intimate 
union  under  the  name  of  "Allies  of  the  armed  neutrality."  These  three 
Powers  agreed  to  defend  their  cause  in  common  and  jointly,  so  that 
an  attack  directed  against  any  one  of  them  through  some  violation  of 
the  right  of  neutrals  would  bring  simultaneously  the  other  two  to  its 
defense. 

As  could  be  foreseen,  England  alone  refused  her  adhesion  to  this 
act  which  was  intended  to  open  up  a  new  phase  in  the  regulation  of 
neutrality  by  establishing  principles  that  should  gradually  decrease  the 
exclusive  domination  of  the  greatest  maritime  Power.  The  British 
Ministry  explained  its  refusal  on  the  ground  of  political  maxims  which 
it  had  hitherto  constantly  followed,  and  upon  its  conventions  which,  as 
regards  treatment  on  the  seas  on  the  part  of  the  British  marine,  granted 
to  certain  privileged  States  immunities  which  the  other  States  did  not 
enjoy.  And  to  these  latter  England  would  for  nothing  in  the  world 
concede  the  advantage  that  the  neutral  flag  should  protect  enemy 
property. 

England  alone  was  however  not  capable  of  halting  the  current  of 
ideas  of  a  neutrality  more  in  conformity  with  right,  ideas  upheld  by 
many  other  nations  and  even  by  the  new  opinion  which  already  began 
to  appear  everywhere  on  the  horizon.  The  modern  spirit  demanded 
an  international,  a  distributive  and  equal  justice  for  all  the  States,  and 
simplicity,  frankness,  and  clarity  in  the  laws.  The  principles  proposed 
by  the  armed  neutrality  had  no  other  object  in  view  than  that  of  sub- 
stituting fixed  rules  in  the  place  of  momentary  arbitrariness,  an 
objective  justice  in  the  place  of  the  whim  of  the  stronger,  the  precepts 
of  natural  law  in  the  place  of  the  shrewdness  of  an  ambitious  policy, 
and  at  least  a  relative  security  for  peaceful  navigation  in  the  place  of 


136  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

maritime  brigandage.  In  the  presence  of  these  irrefutable  facts,  and 
in  the  face  of  the  unity  and  harmony  between  the  States  favorable  to 
this  reform,  the  British  Government,  while  avoiding  a  real  adhesion 
thereto,  was  nevertheless  compelled  to  practise  a  little  more  moderation 
in  the  application  of  its  former  rigorous  usages.  It  protested  in  vague 
terms,  especially  against  the  maxim  "the  flag  protects  the  merchan- 
dise." But  it  made  more  than*  one  exception  in  its  favor;  it  issued 
instructions  to  its  cruisers  enjoining  them  to  proceed  with  greater 
prudence  toward  the  neutrals,  and  to  the  latter  it  opened  the  commerce 
of  the  Mediterranean. 

The  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality"  acquired  in  this  manner,  if 
not  an  exclusive  and  absolute,  at  least  a  decisive,  influence  over  the 
interpretation  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  during  the  following 
period  which  extended  up  to  the  time  of  the  Crimean  War.  Not  all, 
of  course,  had  been  gained  by  the  declaration  of  1780.  It  provided 
no  protection  for  neutral  property  under  the  enemy  flag  and  did  not 
restrict  the  right  of  search.  But  it  put  an  end  to  a  state  of  incertitude, 
of  insecurity,  and  of  confusion  which,  for  lack  of  precise  laws  accepted 
by  the  majority  of  the  States,  had  controlled  ever  since  the  time  of  the 
Consolato  del  Mare.  Every  nation  had  followed  its  own  special  rule, 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  moment:  no  rule  had  been  estab- 
lished on  juridical  bases  as  a  result  of  serious  negotiations  between  a 
considerable  number  of  Governments.  Though  incomplete  and  defec- 
tive, tl'.e  principles  of  the  "armed  neutrality"  were  at  least  formulated 
in  an  exact  manner  and  had  been  recognized  and  adopted  by  almost 
all  the  Powers  of  Europe  and  of  America.  Faithfully  they  expressed 
the  reasons  of  an  international  conscience ;  the  motive  forces  back  of 
them  were  peace  and  justice.  And  lastly,  they  restricted  the  preten- 
sions of  a  single  Power  of  exercising  a  universal  dictatorship  unaccom- 
panied by  legal  sanction  and  exclusively  based  upon  might.  The  accord 
and  harmony  between  the  other  States,  their  understanding  officially 
declared  and  clearly  expressed,  their  demands  based  upon  equity  and 
humanity  presented  a  reassuring  guarantee  theretofore  unknown.  It 
is  true  that  its  application  could  only  be  of  a  restricted  kind  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  no  serious  conflict  arising  from  the  divergence  of 
views  between  England  and  the  .States  of  the  league  gave  to  the  latter, 
during  the  period  in  question,  the  opportunity  of  setting  forth  the 
practical  consequences  of  the  declaration.  The  great  significance  of 
the  diplomatic  act  of  the  year  1780  is  rather  to  be  found  in  the  fact 


KLEEN  137 

that  it  constitutes  a  principle  and  sets  forth  the  expression  of  a  new 
and  more  enlightened  spirit.  Attention  had  been  attracted  to  the  need 
of  a  more  effective  general  protection  of  the  right  of  neutrality,  and 
also  to  the  powerful  aid  which  the  reformation  of  this  right  could  find 
in  the  public  opinion  of  the  civilized  world,  because  almost  all  the 
nations  had  shown  themselves  ready  to  defend  more  energetically  than 
ever  before  the  interests  of  the  neutrals.  After  this  solemn  and  collect- 
ive declaration  it  was  felt  everywhere  that  soon  there  would  rule  a  better 
legislation  over  the  conditions  in  the  countries  not  engaged  in  war 
while  war  was  being  waged  elsewhere,  and  that  the  world  was  on  the 
eve  of  a  new  and  more  liberal  solution  of  the  so  important  questions 
of  the  protection  of  the  neutrals  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
belligerents.  The  time  of  the  great  reformation  in  the  matter  of  neu- 
trality may  therefore  be  regarded  as  having  begun  with  the  declaration 
of  1780,  even  though  the  reform  itself  was  to  await  for  some  time  its 
subsequent  development,  and  though  it  had  to  suffer  from  the  interrup- 
tions brought  about  as  the  result  of  abnormal  circumstances. 

One  of  these  interruptions,  the  most  deplorable  and  the  most  violent, 
which  threw  Europe  once  more  into  a  state  of  anarchy  which  one 
had  been  entitled  to  believe  had  long  since  disappeared,  was  the  result 
of  the  wars  of  the  great  revolution  which  broke  out  soon  afterward. 
The  violations  of  the  law  of  neutrality  and  the  abuses  of  the  laws  of 
war  reached  then  such  a  stage  that  it  would  hardly  have  been  possible 
to  maintain  the  modest  reform  which  had  been  introduced,  and  even 
less  to  continue  to  develop  the  same.  France  and  England  surpassed 
one  another  in  reactionary  manifestoes  addressed  to  the  rest  of  Europe 
concerning  the  situation  of  the  neutrals,  and  the  arbitrary  decrees  of 
the  belligerents  reduced  these  to  a  state  of  almost  illimited  dependency. 
Each  of  the  two  western  rivals  claimed  the  right  to  close  the  entire 
continent  to  its  adversary.  The  principles  not  only  of  armed  neutrality, 
but  of  almost  the  entire  law  of  neutrality  hitherto  known  and  accepted, 
were  disregarded  and  trampled  underfoot.  One  of  the  first  conse- 
quences of  this  violent  reaction  was  the  fact  that  England  could  again 
apply  her  antiquated  principles  and  compel  the  weaker  States  to  tolerate 
them,  as  long  as  they  were  not  prevented  in  this  by  the  terrorism  from 
the  opposite  side.  The  rule  that  the  flag  protects  the  merchandise  was 
in  fact  abolished  and  as  the  neutrals  could  no  longer  act  in  common 
accord, — some  being  dominated  by  the  conqueror,  and  others  hesitating 
as  to  the  decision  they  should  take  in  the  face  of  such  overwhelming 


138  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

evidence,  while  still  others  were  compelled  to  conclude  treaties  with 
England  in  order  to  be  able  to  resist  the  threats  of  France, — the  bond 
which  had  held  together  the  members  of  the  league  of  1780  was 
broken,  and  the  union  which  had  made  for  the  unity  and  the  success 
of  other  reformatory  labors  was  sundered.  They  deserted,  one  after 
the  other,  or  they  avoided  coming  to  a  decision ;  at  all  events,  they  did 
not  endeavor  to  realize  their  promise  to  "defend  the  right  of  the  neu- 
trals by  armed  force." 

Even  at  the  last  moment,  when  war  broke  out  between  revolutionary 
France  and  the  allied  Powers,  the  Scandinavian  States  tried  to 
strengthen  the  bonds  by  uniting  on  the  basis  of  the  compact  of  1780. 
But  Russia  failed  in  this  instance  for  she  felt  compelled  to  accede 
to  the  coalition  of  which  England  was  the  soul.  And  in  fear  of  divid- 
ing the  forces  that  were  to  be  opposed  to  France,  the  other  memhers 
of  the  league  of  1780  dared  not  stand  apart  from  England.  Every 
legal  scruple  was  put  aside  in  the  presence  of  the  pretended  political 
necessity  of  crushing,  or  at  least  of  throwing  back  republican  France, 
which  was  regarded  as  dangerous  for  the  peace  of  Europe.  It  soon 
became  a  fashionable  tactic  in  the  policy  of  sea  dictatorship  to  excuse 
every  violation  of  the  right  of  neutrals  with  the  pretext  that  at  any 
price,  even  at  the  price  of  justice  and  of  equity  in  international  rela- 
tions, it  was  necessary  to  prevent  the  domination  of  the  French  Re- 
public. On  the  other  hand,  the  French  Republic  put  forth  analogous 
pretexts  to  checkmate  British  preponderance  through  violations  of 
the  law  of  neutrality. 

Even  at  the  time  of  the  National  Convention,  the  leading  Powers 
of  the  coalition,  especially  England,  had  tried  to  force  the  Scandinavian 
States  to  adopt  with  regard  to  France  a  procedure  similar  to  others, 
and  to  prevent  their  commerce  with  French  ports.  They  forbade  the 
neutrals  to  transport  thither,  not  only  articles  of  war  contraband,  but 
even  articles  of  prime  necessity,  such  as  wheat,  food  and  other  like 
produce.  English  privateers  seized  the  vessels  which  carried  on  the 
transportation  of  such  articles  to  France.  Fictitious  blockades  were 
declared,  and  vessels  which  did  not  observe  them  were  captured.  Those 
vessels  bringing  produce  from  the  French  colonies  were  likewise  de- 
clared legitimate  prize.  Further  than  that,  and  independently  of  its 
nationality  and  cargo,  England  declared  legitimate  prize  any  vessel 
sailing  to  or  from  a  French  port.  France,  on  the  other  hand,  threatened 
bv   famine,  resorted  to  violent  reprisals.    In   1793  she  repudiated  the 


KLEEN  139 

principles  of  1780  by  reestablishing  the  ancient  prize  rules  which  had 
prevailed  before  the  reign  of  Louis  XV.  In  virtue  of  the  decrees  of  the 
National  Convention  French  privateers  captured  not  only  enemy  prop- 
erty under  the  neutral  flag,  but  even  any  vessel  transporting  merchan- 
dise of  English  manufacture  or  belonging  to  the  enemy,  or  neces- 
saries of  life  belonging  to  neutrals  but  destined  for  the  enemy.  Accord- 
ing to  a  law  of  1798,  the  neutral  vessel  was  not  to  be  treated  according 
to  the  flag  she  flew  but  according  to  her  cargo,  and  in  consequence  was 
to  be  captured  if  she  transported  enemy  property,  and  thus  especially 
any  object  coming  from  England  or  from  the  English  colonies  was 
to  be  regarded  as  enemy  property. 

Fortunately,  these  reciprocal  violations  of  the  law  of  neutrality 
lasted  not  longer  than  the  burst  of  passions  loosened  by  the  wars  of 
the  Revolution.  A  proof,  moreover,  that  the  oppressed  law  had  never 
ceased  to  enjoy  a  certain  degree  of  respect  within  the  innermost  of  the 
consciences  and  that  these  continued  to  uphold  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples, in  spite  of  the  abuses  and  of  the  accidental  transgressions  of  this 
time  in  almost  the  whole  of  Europe,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  since  the 
encroachments  upon  the  rights  of  the  neutrals  began  under  the  National 
Convention,  the  allied  Powers  deemed  it  necessary  to  lay  before  the 
neutral  States  which  still  insisted  upon  their  rights,  such  as  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  the  Scandinavian  States  in  Europe,  excuses 
with  regard  to  the  irregularities  that  had  been  committed,  by  alleging 
"the  exceptional  situation"  created  by  the  events  which  took  place  in 
France  and  which  were  of  an  essentially  transitory  nature.  England 
went  so  far  as  to  mitigate  some  of  her  measures  of  violence,  by  accord- 
ing exceptional  immunities  to  certain  neutral  States  which  desired  to 
remain  at  peace. ^ 

The  compact  of  1780  was  broken  and  its  principles  no  longer  ob- 
served, since  Russia  had  become  the  ally  of  England  and  in  consequence 
had  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  new  laws,  so  embarrassing  to  a 
maritime  supremacy.  Hence,  when  a  few  years  later,  the  Russian 
Government  again  separated  from  England  and  her  allies,  and  recov- 
ered its  freedom  of  action,  its  first  thought  was  to  reconstruct  the 
armed  neutrality.  The  alliance  between  Russia,  Sweden  and  Denmark 
was  therefore  renewed  in  December  16,  1800,  in  the  name  of  "second 


^Instructions  issued  in  1793  t(.  English  cruisers  forbid  the  latter  to  seize 
Scandinavian  vessels  for  violations  of  the  blockade,  imless  in  spite  of  the 
warning  given  them,  they  had  again  tried  to  enter  the  blockaded  region. 


140  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

armed  neutrality" ;  and  Prussia  adhered  to  it.  They  returned  to  the 
principles  of  1780.  These  principles  were  not  merely  reestablished 
but  considerably  extended  and  increased  in  a  liberal  and  equitable  sense. 
To  the  live  points  of  the  first  armed  neutrality,  the  following  two  were 
added : 

1.  A  neutral  vessel  is  not  guilty  of  violating  the  blockade  until  it  has 
been  warned  by  a  war-ship  or  by  a  corsair  of  the  blockading  Power 
and  it  attempts  nevertheless  to  run  the  blockade  either  by  ruse  or  by 
force. 

2.  When  neutral  merchant  ships  are  escorted  by  a  neutral  war-ship, 
they  may  not  be  searched,  and  the  declaration  of  the  officer  in  command 
of  the  convoy  that  there  is  no  war  contraband  on  board  shall  be  deemed 
sufficient. 

The  British  Ministry  neglected  no  effort  to  break  this  new  bond  of 
neutrality,  or  at  least  to  annul  its  consequences,  and  it  was  successful. 
After  long  negotiations,  it  again  brought  about  the  separation  of 
Russia  from  her  allies;  and  on  June  17,  1801,  it  concluded  with  the 
St.  Petersburg  Ministry  a  convention  by  which  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment again  abandoned  the  essential  and  most  important  principles  of 
the  compacts  of  1780  and  1800,  especially  the  one  in  virtue  of  which 
the  neutral  flag  was  to  protect  the  enemy  merchandise,  but  England 
was  also  forced  to  make  some  concessions ;  so  that  the  armed  neutral- 
ity, without  which  these  concessions  could  not  have  been  obtained,  has 
not  been  wholly  unfruitful.  The  Scandinavian  States  forsaken  by  Rus- 
sia and  remaining  isolated  and  no  longer  able  to  maintain  their  resist- 
ance, felt  compelled  to  accede  to  the  Anglo-Russian  convention  (1801- 
1802).  Prussia  alone  absolutely  refused  her  aid  to  this  recantation  of 
principles  solemnly  published.  But  England  made  wide  use  of  her 
triumph  to  induce  several  other  States,  one  after  another,  to  conclude 
with  her  special  conventions  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of  1801, 
which  principles,  in  consequence,  became  soon  afterwards  predominant. 
It  may  be  said  that  they  have  been  the  law  of  a  large  part  of  Europe 
during  the  first  half  of  our  century,  that  is  to  say,  in  a  general  way 
for  England  and  for  those  which  had  contracted  with  her,  but  also 
for  other  States  during  a  certain  period  and  as  long  as  they  did  not 
depart  therefrom,  until  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean  War,  the  legislation 
upon  this  matter  was  again  enlarged.  The  rules  of  1801  deserve  there- 
fore a  mention,  although  secondary  in  importance  beside  those  of  1780. 
Thev  may  be  summarized  in  the  following  articles: 


KLEEN  141 

1.  Neutral  vessels  may  freely  sail  to  the  ports  and  along  the  coasts 
of  the  belligerent  nations. 

2.  Merchandise  on  board  these  vessels  is  free  excepting  the  so-called 
war  contraband,  and  merchandise  belonging  to  the  enemy;  merchan- 
dise of  enemy  origin  but  purchased  and  transported  by  a  neutral  must 
in  all  cases  enjoy  the  benefits  acquired  by  the  neutral  flag. 

3.  To  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  nature  of  articles  which  constitute 
war  contraband,  the  contracting  Parties  refer  to  the  treaty  of  commerce 
concluded  between  them  on  February  21,  1797.^ 

4.  A  port  is  regarded  as  blockaded  only  in  case  its  entrance  ofifers 
real  danger  by  reason  of  the  number  of  war-ships  directed  to  inhibit 
access  to  it. 

5.  Legal  action  against  neutral  vessels  seized  because  of  founded 
suspicions  or  of  evidently  guilty  acts  must  be  taken  without  delay,  and 
the  mode  of  procedure  of  this  action  shall  be  uniform  and  strictly  legal. 

Regarding  the  search  of  convoyed  vessels,  the  stipulations  of  the 
convention  may  be  summed  up  as  follows : 

1.  The  right  of  searching  merchant  ships,  owned  by  subjects  of  one 
of  the  contracting  Powers  and  sailing  under  the  escort  of  a  war  vessel 
of  their  nation,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  vessels  of  like  rank  of  the 
belligerent  State  and  may  not  be  exercised  by  corsairs. 

2.  Owners  of  vessels  intending  to  sail  in  convoy  under  the  escort 
of  a  war  vessel  must,  before  being  given  their  ship's  papers,  present 
to  the  chief  of  the  convoy  their  passports  and  their  sea  certificates  in 
the  form  determined  by  the  treaty. 

3.  When  a  convoy  is  met  by  a  war  vessel  of  the  belligerent  Parties, 
the  latter,  unless  weather  conditions  or  circumstances  prevent,  must 
hold  herself  beyond  cannon  range  and  send  a  longboat  to  the  convoying 
vessel  to  proceed  in  common  to  the  examination  of  the  papers  and 
certificates  showing  that  the  one  is  authorized  to  escort  such  or  such 
vessels  with  this  or  that  cargo  from  port  A  to  port  B,  and  that  the 
other  really  belongs  to  the  royal  (imperial)  marine  of  the  nation  whose 
flag  she  flies. 

4.  Once  the  regularity  of  the  papers  is  established,  any  legitimate 
suspicion  must  be  regarded  as  removed.     In  the  contrary  case,  and 


^According  to  this  treaty  articles  of  contraband  were  approximately  limited  to 
those  which  had  been  specified  in  the  previous  treaty  between  the  same  parties  of 
June  20,  1766  (see  ante,  page  134).  that  is  to  say,  with  few  exceptions,  to  those 
articles  especially  adapted  to  war  uses.  This  point  constitutes  therefore  a  con- 
cession of  the  neutrals.     Post,  p.  445. 


142  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

after  having  been  properly  and  duly  requested  thereto  by  the  belliger- 
ent, the  chief  of  the  convoy  must  stop  long  enough  to  permit  searching 
the  convoyed  vessels. 

If  after  examination  of  the  documents  the  searcher  believes  that 
he  has  good  reasons  to  detain  one  or  several  convoyed  vessels,  Article 
5  authorizes  him  to  hand  the  captain  and  crew  to  the  chief  of  the  escort 
vi^ho,  on  his  part,  may  put  on  board  the  detained  vessels  an  officer  to 
assist  in  the  investigation,  v^hich  must  take  place,  without  delay,  in 
the  nearest  port  of  the  belligerent,  in  the  presence  of  the  seized  vessel. 
Article  6  forbids  the  chief  of  the  convoy  to  oppose  by  force  of  arms 
any  acts  ordered  by  the  belligerent  commander.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  latter  abuses  the  power  thus  conferred  upon  him,  or  detains  a 
vessel  without  sufficient  reason,  the  offended  owners  of  the  vessel  or 
cargo  must  be  indemnified. 

As  appears  from  this  summary,  the  1801  convention,  which  evidently 
sought  to  conciliate  England's  pretensions  and  the  needs  of  the  union 
of  the  North,  deviated  widely  from  the  principles  of  the  second  armed 
neutrality;  and  England's  pretensions  won  the  day  on  all  principal 
matters.  According  to  the  convention  enemy  property  under  neutral 
flag  could  again  be  captured.  A  violation  of  the  blockade  made  it  no 
longer  a  condition  that  the  line  be  passed  through  ruse  or  through  force 
after  previous  warning  had  been  given  by  a  vessel  of  the  blockading 
Power  of  the  state  of  blockade  in  the  very  place  of  the  operation — a 
condition  which  would  have  guaranteed  an  effective  blockade ;  nor  was 
the  fixed  stationing  of  the  blockading  vessels  prescribed.  Finally,  the 
search  of  convoyed  merchant  ships  was  permitted.  •  Now,  these  three 
points  which  had  been  the  main  matter  of  England's  pretensions  and 
because  of  which  England  had  protested  against  the  treaty  of  the 
armed  neutrality,  constituted  so  many  retrograde  steps  in  the  regulation 
of  the  rights  of  neutrals ;  and  they  carried  with  them  the  abrogation  of 
the  essentials  of  the  liberal  principles  proclaimed  by  the  league  of 
1780-1800,  to  wit:  The  inviolahility  of  the  neutral  flag,  the  effective 
quality  of  blockades,  and  the  abolition  of  the  search  of  convoys. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  convention  of  1801  contained,  no  doubt, 
besides  these  restrictions,  various  other  provisions  favorable  to  neutral- 
ity. It  stipulated  explicitly  the  freedom  of  traffic  between  the  open 
ports  of  a  belligerent  and  a  neutral,  and  removed  the  unjust  prohibitions 
to  any  commerce  with  the  enemy  which  were  so  frequently  decreed 
during  the  wars  of  the  Revolution.    It  also  limited  in  a  reasonable  way 


DE  LOUTER  143 

the  idea  of  war  contraband.  And  finally,  to  make  the  blockade  legal, 
it  required  a  certain  number  of  war  vessels  which,  though  the  number 
thereof  was  left  to  the  subjective  appreciation  of  the  belligerents,  was 
nevertheless  calculated  to  exclude  purely  fictitious  blockades.  In  princi- 
ple the  latter  were  at  least  disapproved  of. 

Thanks  to  these  rather  liberal  provisions,  the  convention  might  have 
been  regarded  as  a  slight  step  in  advance  toward  the  development  of 
neutrality,  if  it  had  been  loyally  executed  and  scrupulously  applied.  It 
was  certainly  the  first  international  act  of  general  interest  through 
which  England  modified  somewhat  her  ancient  pretensions  of  dictator- 
ship without  any  regard  whatever  for  the  opinions  of  the  other  nations. 
For  the  first  time,  the  British  Government  made  important  concessions 
to  the  neutrals ;  she  bound  herself  by  explicitly  clear  conventional  dis- 
positions and  to  a  certain  degree  broke  with  her  traditional  system, 
followed  by  all  her  ministries,  of  avoiding  precise  stipulations  in  order 
to  avail  herself  of  the  obscurity  and  ambiguity  of  expressions  according 
to  her  purposes  which  varied  with  circumstances,  and  in  order  to  be 
able  to  apply  the  rules  more  rigidly  with  respect  to  some  nations  and 
more  considerately  with  respect  to  others.  It  is  true  that  the  conven- 
tion was  far  behind  the  armed  neutrality  with  regard  to  the  protection 
of  the  right  of  the  neutrals.  Nevertheless,  it  oflfered  at  least  the  ad- 
vantage, not  only  of  constituting  a  compact  between  two  adverse  parties 
which  theretofore  had  not  been  able  to  reach  an  understanding,  but 
even  of  binding  by  definite  laws  the  greatest  maritime  Power  which 
theretofore  had  not  allowed  herself  to  be  bound  by  anything. 

Unfortunately,  this  advantage  of  the  convention  was  considerably 
reduced  by  the  fact  that,  in  large  part,  it  remained  a  dead  letter. 
England  realized  ere  long  that  she  had  granted  too  much,  while  the 
neutrals  thought  that  she  had  granted  too  little.  Their  right  had  indeed 
been  sacrificed  to  her.  Both  parties  were  dissatisfied  with  the  new 
order  of  things,  and  by  all  means  available  they  sought  to  liberate 
themselves.    Ere  long,  the  opportunity  to  do  so  presented  itself. 


DE  LOUTER:    Het  Stellig  Volkenrecht.     The  Hague,  1910. 

J.  de  Louter.     Contemporary  Dutch  publicist ;  born  in  1847 ;  doctor  of  law  of 
Utrecht  University;  practising  lawyer  at  Amersfoort;  professor  of  public  law  at 


144  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  University  of  Amsterdam,  and  of  public  international  law  at  the  University 
of  Utrecht ;  member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law. 

Mr.  de  Louter  has  contributed  many  articles  to  law  reviews,  notably  on  the 
subject  of  international  law,  and  is  the  author  of  a  work  on  the  political  and 
administrative  law  of  the  Dutch  Indies  entitled  Staats-en  Administratief  Recht 
van  Nederlandschr-Indi'e  (fifth  edition,  The  Hague,  1904),  which  has  long  been 
pronounced  the  best  treatise  on  the  subject. 


Volume  2,  page  j/^. — In  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  century,  Eng- 
land had  acquired  an  undisputed  supremacy  on  the  seas  and  as  one 
of  the  results  she  disregarded  with  proportionate  arrogance  all  the 
rights  of  the  neutrals.  She  not  only  feared  not  to  subject  ships  under 
the  neutral  flag  to  an  unlimited  right  of  search,  even  though  the  for- 
eign merchant  ships  were  under  the  escort  of  a  convoy  of  war-ships 
of  their  own  State,  but  in  the  Seven  Years'  War  which  brought  her 
sea  power  to  its  zenith,  she  even  declared  that  neutral  ships  to  which 
the  enemy  had  granted  the  privilege  of  carrying  on  trade  with  her 
colonies  during  the  time  of  the  war,  would  be  regarded  as  enemy 
ships  and  therefore  were  to  be  seized  unreservedly  and  declared  legiti- 
mate prizes.  Hiibner  entered  the  lists  against  these  pretensions  with 
the  statement  that  the  neutrals  also  possessed  rights  which  had  to  be 
respected  by  the  belligerents.  This  statement  marks  indeed  a  second 
period  in  the  history  of  neutrality. 

In  the  meantime  it  had  become  increasingly  necessary  to  bring 
England  to  reason.  The  rebellion  of  the  American  colonies  followed 
by  the  war  with  France,  Spain  and  the  United  Netherlands  gave  rise 
to  new  motives  for  molesting  neutrals.  Russia  resisted  these  vexa- 
tions. During  the  reign  of  the  energetic  Empress  Catherine  II,  Rus- 
sia had  concluded  in  1780  with  Sweden  and  Denmark  an  alliance 
under  the  name  of  armed  neutrality,  which  had  for  its  object  to  de- 
fend the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  neutrals,  if  need  be,  by  armed 
forces.  The  declaration  of  February  28,  1780,  contained  the  follow- 
ing principles  which  should  thenceforth  constitute  the  basis  of  mari- 
time neutrality:  (a)  neutral  ships  may  freely  sail  to  the  ports  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  belligerents,  inclusive  of  their  colonies ;  (b) 
enemy  merchandise  is  safe  under  the  neutral  flag,  with  the  exception 
of  war  contraband;^   (c)  the  question  as  to  what  constitutes  contra- 


^Kleen,  Lois  et  usages,  vol.  1,  p.  22,  assumes  that  the  reverse  of  this  is  tacitly 
agreed  to,  and  the  so-called  Utrecht  rule  of  1713  is  thus  accepted.  A  comparison 
with  the  declaration  of  1856  makes  this  interpretation  admissible. 


DE  LOUTER  145 

band  is  defined  by  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  of  June  20,  1766, 
between  Russia  and  England,  which  were  thenceforth  obligatory  upon 
all  belligerents :  these  articles  indicated  only  goods  exclusively  ser- 
viceable for  war  operations,  and  in  addition  saltpeter,  sulphur,  sad- 
dles and  bridles;  (d)  a  port  is  regarded  as  blockaded  only  when  there 
is  an  actual  and  real  danger  in  entering  therein ;  and  this  can  be  so 
only  in  case  the  blockading  ships  are  stationary  and  in  close  touch 
with  one  another;  (e)  the  authorities  of  the  prize  courts  are  to  ob- 
serve these  principles. 

The  declaration  of  1780  was  submitted  to  all  the  neutral  States  of 
Europe  and  accepted  by  them ;  France,  Spain  and  the  United  States 
also  accepted  its  principles  soon  thereafter.  England  alone  refused 
and  resisted  and  was  soon  supported  by  the  coalition-wars  following 
the  French  Revolution  when  Russia  renounced  her  viewpoint  and  the 
ancient  abuses  were  revived.  In  union  with  Sweden,  Denmark  and 
Prussia,  Russia  again  tried  in  1800  to  establish  a  second  armed  neu- 
trality, but  did  not  succeed.  To  the  aforementioned  principles  she 
had  added  two  more,  namely:  (f)  a  breach  of  the  blockade  is  pre- 
sumed only  in  case  the  guilt}'  ship  had  been  warned  beforehand ;  (g) 
in  the  case  of  a  convoy,  search  is  to  be  stayed  upon  the  declaration  of 
the  commander  that  there  is  no  contraband  on  board.  In  the  mean- 
time England  again  succeeded  in  swerving  Russia  from  the  principles 
of  1780  and  1800,  and  on  June  17,  1801,  she  concluded  with  the  new 
Emperor  Alexander  I  a  treaty  which  contained  important  deviations 
from  the  said  principles,  but  to  which  most  of  the  States  were  never- 
theless compelled  to  accede.  In  the  matter  of  war  contraband,  enemy 
merchandise  under  the  neutral  flag  was  again  declared  legitimate  prize. 
The  conditions  of  a  lawful  blockade  were  considerably  weakened.  By 
observing  a  few  formalities,  ships  under  convoy  could  also  be  searched 
by  the  war-ships  of  the  belligerents.  .Still,  a  few  of  the  principles 
were  retained,  among  others  the  free  commerce  of  neutrals  with  the 
belligerents,  the  definition  of  contraband,  and  the  condemnation  of 
the  fictitious  blockade.  Rut  even  these  elements  of  a  growing  law 
were  temporarily  lost  sight  of  in  the  maelstrom  of  the  Napoleonic 
wars.  During  the  titanic  struggle  between  England  and  France  which 
ere  long  subjected  the  whole  Continent  of  Europe  to  the  will  of 
Napoleon,  the  neutrals  disappear  for  the  most  part  from  the  stage 
and  the  rights  of  the  remaining  few  are  trampled  under  foot. 
Through  fictitious  blockades  along  extended  coasts,  even  of  all  the 


146  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

British  Isles,  the  grim  adversaries  sought  to  destroy  each  other's  com- 
merce. They  vied  with  each  other  in  arbitrary  and  unrestricted  pro- 
hibitory laws  and  threats.  Neutral  ships  which  ventured  to  trade 
with  the  enemy  were  declared  forfeited  together  with  their  cargoes. 
This  frenzy  reached  its  highest  point  in  the  imperial  decree  issued  at 
Fontainebleau,  October  16.  1810,  which  ordered  that  all  British  mer- 
chandise found  in  France  or  in  countries  of  her  allies  should  be  de- 
stroyed by  fire. 

But  the  United  States  was  able  after  the  recognition  of  its  inde- 
pendence to  rescue  the  rights  of  neutrals  from  the  general  violation 
of  right.  Inclination  and  interest  brought  it  to  the  side  of  the  neu- 
trals in  their  resistance  against  the  belligerents.  Already  in  1793  it 
had  vigorously  protested  against  the  attempts  of  its  old  French  ally 
to  misuse  American  territory,  and  had  emphatically  forbidden  France 
to  recruit  soldiers  within  its  territory  and  to  equip  war-ships  or  cor- 
sairs in  the  interest  of  one  of  the  belligerents.  Impartiality  was  the 
duty  of  neutrality  and  could  not  but  lead  to  a  strict  refraining  from 
any  favor  or  prejudice  to  parties.  Numerous  treaties  with  European 
Powers  sought  to  secure  a  wider  observance  of  these  and  similar  prin- 
ciples, among  others,  the  inviolability  of  the  neutral  flag  and  even  the 
abolition  of  privateering.^  Meanwhile  the  United  States  had  not  become 
powerful  enough  to  enter  the  lists  with  the  all-powerful  Great  Britain ; 
by  the  non-intercourse  act  of  May  10,  1810,  it  broke  off  all  commer- 
cial relations  with  both  belligerents ;  but  in  the  war  with  England  of 
1812  it  was  forced  to  moderate  its  claims  and  to  surrender  them  in 
part.  Nevertheless,  the  influence  of  the  United  States  upon  the  de- 
velopment of  the  law  of  neutrality  has  remained  great  and  durable. 


MANNING:  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Nations.     London,  1839. 

William  Oke  Manning.  English  publicist;  born  in  1809;  died  in  1878.  In 
1839  he  published  Commentaries  on  the  Law  of  Nations.  There  was  then  no 
Englisli  treatise  on   the   subject    (though  there  were  two  by  Americans),   and 


1  According  to  the  six  articles  by  Nys,  "Les  Etats-Unis  et  Ic  droit  des  gens" 
in  Revue  de  droit  international,  1909,  p.  383,  the  Americans,  during  the  English- 
French  war  of  1803-1812,  lost  917  ships  captured  by  the  English,  and  558  cap- 
tured by  the  French. 


MANNING  147 

Manning's  book  w^s  noticeable  for  its  historical  method,  its  appreciation  of  the 
combination  of  the  ethical  and  customary  elements  in  international  law,  as  well 
as  for  the  exactness  of  its  reasoning  and  its  artistic  completeness.  The  book  at 
first  attracted  little  attention,  but  was  gradually  found  useful  by  teachers,  and 
was  cited  as  an  authority  in  the  courts.  The  new  edition,  issued  in  1875,  was 
revised  and  enlarged  by  Professor  Sheldon  Amos,  with  a  preface  by  Manning. 


Page  2^y. — The  commencement  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780, 
may  be  traced  to  a  circular  issued  by  the  Russian  Court  to  different 
European  Powers,  dated  28th  February,  1780.  This  document,  after 
setting  forth  the  great  tenderness  which  the  Empress  had  herself 
evinced  in  regard  to  neutral  commerce,  and  the  vexations,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  neutral  commerce,  especially  Russian,  had  been  subjected 
to  during  the  existing  war,  went  on  to  state  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
felt  called  upon  to  take  measures  to  maintain  her  own  dignity  and  the 
welfare  of  her  subjects ;  and  that,  to  prevent  future  misunderstanding, 
she  had  determined  to  communicate  the  principles  on  which  she  pro- 
posed to  act,  which  she  did  with  the  greater  confidence,  as  these  princi- 
ples were  based  on  the  primitive  rights  of  nations,  were  such  as  every 
nation  had  a  right  to  insist  on,  and  were  such  as  the  belligerent  States 
could  not  invalidate  without  violating  the  laws  of  neutrality,  and  with- 
out disavowing  the  maxims  which  they  themselves  had  adopted,  espe- 
cially in  different  treaties  and  public  engagements.  The  principles 
referred  to  consisted  of  the  following  provisions : 

I.  That  neutral  ships  might  freely  trade  from  port  to  port,  and  upon 
the  coasts  of  nations  at  war. 

II.  That  the  property  of  the  subjects  of  belligerent  Powers  should 
be  free  on  board  neutral  ships,  excepting  goods  that  were  contraband. 

III.  That  with  regard  to  contraband  goods,  the  Empress  bound  her- 
self by  what  was  contained  in  the  Articles  10  and  1 1  of  her  treaty  with 
Great  Britain,  extending  these  obligations  to  all  belligerent  Powers. 

IV.  That  to  determine  what  characterises  a  blockaded  port,  this 
term  shall  be  confined  to  places  where  there  is  an  evident  danger  in 
entering,  from  the  arrangements  of  the  Power  which  is  attacking,  with 
vessels  stationary  and  sufficiently  close. 

V.  That  these  principles  shall  serve  for  a  rule  in  the  proceedings 
and  judgments  on  the  legality  of  prizes. 

To  support  these  principles,  the  Empress  added  that  she  had  fitted 
out  a  considerable  portion  of  her  fleet,  which  she,  nevertheless,  trusted 


148  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

that  the  interests  of  her  subjects,  or  the  honour  of  her  flag,  would  not 
render  it  necessary  to  employ.^ 

This  manifesto,  with  the  second  article  of  which  we  are  at  present 
alone  concerned,  was  forwarded  to  different  belligerent  and  neutral 
Powers.  In  reply  to  this  communication,  France,-  Spain,^  and  the 
United  Provinces,*  immediately  expressed  their  concurrence  in  its 
provisions. 

But  Great  Britain  never  acquiesced  in  the  pretensions  of  the  Russian 
memorial,  and  the  reply  of  our  Court  to  the  Russian  communication 
stated,  that  "His  Majesty  hath  acted  towards  friendly  and  neutral 
Powers  according  to  their  own  procedure  respecting  Great  Britain,  and' 
conformably  to  the  clearest  principles  generally  acknozvledged  as  the 
laws  of  nations,  being  the  only  lazv  between  Powers  where  no  treaties 
subsist,  and  agreeably  to  the  tenor  of  his  different  engagements  with 
Other  Powers,  whose  engagements  have  altered  this  primitive  law, 
by  mutual  stipulations  proportioned  to  the  will  and  convenience  of  the 
contracting  parties :"  that  precise  orders  had  been  given  respecting  the 
flag  and  commerce  of  Russia,  according  to  the  law  of  nations  and 
the  tenor  of  our  treaty  of  commerce ;  that  it  was  to  be  presumed  that 
no  irregularity  would  happen,  but  that  otherwise  redress  would  be 
afforded  by  our  courts  of  admiralty,  judging  according  to  the  law 
of  nations,  "in  so  equitable  a  manner,  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty  shall 
be  perfectly  satisfied,  and  acknowledge  a  like  spirit  of  justice  which 
she  herself  possesses."^ 

Negotiations  subsequently  took  place  between  some  of  the  northern 
Powers,  explanatory  of  the  assistance  that  was  to  be  afforded  in  case 
the  concurrence  in  an  association  should  draw  down  an  attack  upon 
one  of  the  confederates. °  In  July,  1780,  Denmark,  and  afterwards 
Sweden,  forwarded  circulars  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Paris,  and 
Madrid,  stating  their  intention  to  abide  by  the  five  articles  of  the 
Russian  manifesto,  which  were  copied  verbatim,  with  the  exception 
of  the  alteration  of  the  date  of  the  respective  treaties  defining  contra- 
band. In  reply  to  these  circulars  France  and  Spain  returned  answers 
highly  applauding  the  proceedings  of  the  northern  Courts,  and  stating 
their  acquiescence  in  the  provisions  of  the  new  arrangements.''^ 


^Posf.  p.  273  ^Posf,  p.  279. 

^Post.  p.  284.  *Post,  p.  283. 

^Post,  p.  282. 

"For  the  notes  hetween  Russia  and  Sweden,  see  f^osf,  pp.  276,  288. 

■'Post.  pp.  290,  295.  297.  307.  308,  309.  317,  320. 


MANNING  149 

But  Great  Britain  appealed  to  the  faith  of  treaties,  of  which  the 
conduct  of  Denmark  and  Sweden  was  in  direct  violation.  In  the 
British  note  to  Denmark,  dated  25th  July,  1780,  it  was  stated  that  the 
Danish  commerce  had  always  been  treated  by  us  in  conformity  with 
the  treaties  which  had  subsisted  between  the  two  nations  for  upwards 
of  a  century  (the  treaty  of  1670  being  still  in  full  force),  that  "their 
reciprocal  rights  and  duties  w^ere  evidently  traced  by  these  solemn 
engagements,  which  would  become  illusory  could  they  be  changed 
otherwise  than  by  mutual  consent.  They  subsisted  at  the  present 
moment  in  their  full  force,  and,  equally  obligatory  on  each  of  the 
contracting  Powers,  they  formed  an  inviolable  law  for  both."  Our 
Government  had  always  followed  their  stipulations,  and  expected  the 
same  conduct  from  the  Court  of  Denmark.^ 

In  the  same  manner,  in  the  British  reply  to  the  note  of  Sweden,  it 
was  stated  that  the  articles  of  our  treaties  with  Sweden  offered  a  direct 
answer  to  her  novel  pretensions.  The  twelfth  article  of  our  treaty  of 
1661  was  cited,  wherein  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  goods  of  enemies 
shall  not  be  concealed  on  board  the  ships  of  the  other  confederate ; 
and  that  the  goods  of  enemies  found  on  board  the  ships  of  either 
confederate  shall  be  made  prize.  But  the  goods  of  the  subjects  of  the 
confederate  shall  be  restored.  Treaties,  it  was  added,  can  not  be 
altered,  unless  by  the  mutual  consent  of  the  contracting  Parties ;  they 
are  equally  obligatory  on  both,  and  the  King  would  observe  and  main- 
tain them  as  a  sacred  and  inviolable  law.^ 

Appeal  to  the  faith  of  treaties  had,  however,  no  effect  on  the  conduct 
of  these  courts.  Not  that  the  obligation  of  these  treaties  was,  or 
could  be,  denied.  So  far  from  it,  these  treaties  were  expressly  cited 
by  these  courts  themselves ;  and,  with  what  would  be  called  impudence 
in  private  transactions,  some  of  the  articles  of  these  treaties  were  ap- 
pealed to  as  still  existing,  by  both  Sweden  and  Denmark,  while  other 
articles  of  the  same  treaties  were  flagrantly  violated  at  the  same 
moment.  Thus  Denmark,  in  her  treaty  with  Russia,  stated  in  Article  3, 
that  she  would  abide  by  her  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  1670,  for  her 
definition  of  contraband  between  herself  and  England  f  yet,  by  this 
same  treaty,  provision  w^as  made  to  prevent  the  gooas  of  enemies  from 
being  concealed  on  board  the  ships  of  friends.  And  in  Article  2  of  the 
treaty  between  Sweden  and  Russia.  Sweden  refers  expressly  to  Article 

^Pnsf.  p.  308. 

^-Post,  p.  317.  ^Post,  p.  299. 


150  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

11  of  her  treaty  of  1661,  for  her  definition  of  contraband  between  her- 
self and  England:^  yet,  by  the  very  next  article,  the  twelfth,  it  was  en- 
gaged that  the  goods  of  enemies  should  be  taken  from  the  ships  of 
friends.  Yet  it  was  with  such  a  flagrant  violation  of  right,  for  the  sake 
of  a  transient  interest,  that  these  Powers  entered  upon  treaties,  based, 
according  to  their  highsounding  preamble,  on  the  dignity  of  the  con- 
tracting sovereigns,  their  care  for  the  happiness  of  their  people,  and 
their  solicitude  for  the  rights  of  mankind  in  general. 

On  the  28  June/9  July,  1780,  was  made  the  treaty  between  Russia 
and  Denmark,  which  was  the  first  of  the  series  establishing  the  con- 
federacy of  the  armed  neutrality.  By  Article  3  of  this  treaty,  it 
was  stated,  that  "their  Majesties  after  having  already  insisted,  in  their 
declarations  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  on  the  general  principles  of 
natural  right,  of  which  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  as 
well  as  the  rights  of  neutral  nations  are  a  direct  consequence,  have 
resolved  no  longer  to  allow  them  to  be  dependent  on  an  arbitrary  inter- 
pretation, suggested  by  isolated  and  momentary  interests.  With  this 
view,  they  have  agreed, 

I.  That  all  vessels  may  freely  navigate  from  port  to  port,  and  ujDon 
the  coasts  of  nations  at  war. 

II.  That  property  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  States  at  war,  shall 
be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  excepting  merchandise  of  contraband. 

III.  That  to  determine  what  characterises  a  blockaded  port,  this 
term  shall  only  be  allowed  to  those  where,  from  the  arrangements  of 
the  Power  which  is  blockading,  with  vessels  stationary  and  sufficiently 
near,  there  is  an  evident  danger  in  entering. 

IV.  That  neutral  vessels  can  not  be  stopped,  without  just  cause  and 
evident  reasons ;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  without  delay ;  that  the 
proceedings  shall  be  always  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and  that,  in 
every  instance,  besides  the  reparation  afforded  in  cases  in  which  there 
has  been  loss,  but  not  offence,  complete  satisfaction  shall  be  given  for 
the  insult  offered  to  the  flag  of  their  Majesties. 

The  treaty  then  went  on  to  engage  that  each  party  should  equip  a 
fleet  to  support  these  principles,  that  mutual  succour  should  be 
afforded,  and  that  both  parties  should  act  in  concert ;  that  these  stipula- 
tions should  be  regarded  as  permanent,  and  that  other  Powers  should 
be  invited  to  accede  to  similar  conventions.^ 


^Post.  p.  311. 
^Pnst,  p.  299. 


MANNING  151 

A  treaty  precisely  similar,  and  copying  the  above  four  stipulations, 
and  the  ensuing  articles,  verbatim,  was  made  between  Russia  and 
Sweden,  on  the  21  July/1  August,  1780,  and  Sweden  and  Denmark 
exchanged  declarations,  each  binding  themselves  to  the  Russian  treaty 
with  the  other,  and  making  the  confederacy  for  mutual  defence  com- 
plete between  these  three  Powers.^ 

On  the  24th  December,  1780,  the  United  Provinces  made,  at  St. 
Petersburgh,  a  treat}'  with  Russia,  in  which  they  acceded  to  the  above 
treaties  with  the  northern  Courts,  and  issued  declarations  of  their 
joining  in  the  full  extent  of  the  new  confederacy.^ 

Before  the  conclusion  of  this  treaty,  however,  Great  Britain  had 
declared  war,  on  the  20th  December,  against  the  United  Provinces. 
By  treaties  existing  between  this  country  and  the  United  Provinces,  it 
had  been  agreed  that  the  principle  that  "free  ships  make  free  goods" 
should  exist  between  the  two  countries ;  and  also  an  alliance  for  mutual 
defence  existed  engaging  that  if  either  party  were  attacked,  the  other 
party  should  break  with  the  aggressor  in  two  months  from  the  time 
of  requisition  to  do  so.  On  France  and  Spain  joining  in  the  American 
war,  such  requisition  was  made  by  our  Ambassador,  but  was  evaded 
by  the  United  Provinces.  A  hostile  feeling  was  produced  by  this 
conduct,  and  also  by  the  evident  favouring  of  the  American  cause  by 
the  United  Provinces;  and,  on  the  17th  April,  1780  a  declaration  was 
published  by  our  Government,  announcing  that  the  succours  stipulated 
by  the  treaty  of  1678  never  having  been  afiforded  by  the  States  General, 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  of  1674  should  be  suspended, 
and  the  United  Provinces  treated,  no  longer  in  accordance  with  the 
privileges  there  granted,  but  only  on  the  footing  of  other  neutral 
nations.^  Disputes  had  already  taken  place  between  the  two  countries 
regarding  a  squadron  commanded  by  Paul  Jones,  which  had  been  re- 
fitted in  the  Texel,  and  also  respecting  a  fleet  of  merchantmen  convoyed 
by  Count  Byland,  who  had  been  fired  at,  upon  his  refusing  to  submit 
to  search,  and  the  naval  materials  on  board  his  merchantmen  confis- 
cated as  contraband,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1674. 
The  angry  feeling  between  the  two  countries  was  aggravated  by  the 
accession  of  the  United  Provinces  to  the  Russian  memorial ;  and  a 
crisis  arose  upon  the  capture  of  Mr.  Laurens,  formerly  president  of 


■>-Post,  pp.  311,  317,  321,  322,  324. 
^Post,  pp.  346-J53. 
^Post,  p.  277. 


152  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  American  Congress,  who  was  taken  by  a  British  ship,  and  among 
whose  papers  were  found  documents  shewing  that  the  United  Prov- 
inces had  been  in  friendly  correspondence  with  the  United  States  ever 
since  1778,  and  who  had  with  him  a  sketch  of  a  treaty  of  amity  and 
commerce  between  the  United  States  and  the  States  General,  which 
appeared  to  be  in  a  train  of  negotiation,  and  which  was  approved  by 
the  Pensionary  of  Amsterdam.^ 

Soon  after  the  British  declaration  of  war,  the  States  General  made 
application  for  the  assistance  stipulated  in  the  new  confederacy,  in  case 
any  member  of  the  alliance  should  be  attacked  in  consequence  of  the 
principles  there  promulgated.  But  Sweden,  to  whom  the  application 
was  made,  replied  that  the  British  declaration  could  hardly  be  regarded 
as  a  consequence  of  the  States  General  joining  the  new  confederacy, 
inasmuch  as  that  junction  was  made  after  the  British  declaration  of 
war,  the  latter  being  dated  London,  the  20th  December,  while  the 
Dutch  treaty  was  dated  St.  Petersburgh,  the  24th  December.  But 
although  not  coming  within  the  terms  of  the  treaty  for  mutual  defence, 
it  was  possible  that  the  British  declaration  had  been  hastened  in  order 
to  anticipate  that  contingency,  although  the  conduct  of  the  United 
Provinces  in  regard  to  the  Russian  memorial  was  not  noticed  in  the 
British  manifesto.  Still,  if  the  northern  Courts  declared  war  in  conse- 
quence of  our  breaking  with  Holland,  they  removed  all  the  advantages 
of  neutrality  which  the  confederacy  was  especially  established  to  pro- 
mote; while,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  United  Provinces  were  left  to 
their  fate,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  confederacy  had  agreed  to  a  conven- 
tion which  they  were  afraid  to  carry  into  execution.  Therefore,  con- 
cluded the  Swedish  note,  it  would  be  best  for  the  northern  Courts  to 
adopt  a  middle  course,  and  present  in  their  joint  names  a  memorial  to 
the  British  Court,  offering  their  mediation  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  Provinces.  In  this  proposition  Russia  acquiesced.-  But  the 
position  of  the  northern  Powers  with  regard  to  this  country,  was  not, 
at  that  period,  the  most  likely  to  make  an  offer  of  mediation  accept- 
able; and  the  Dutch,  having  deserted  our  alliance  for  the  prospect  of 
a  more  gainful  union,  found  themselves  unsupported  by  their  new 
confederates,  and  had  to  buffet  for  themselves  till  the  end  of  the  war, 
and  to  see  their  commerce  cut  up,  and  some  of  their  colonies  taken 
from  them,  till  they  were  included  in  the  general  peace,  in  1783,  with 
the  loss  of  Negapatam. 


^See  the  British  Manifesto,  post,  p.  3,30. 
^See  the  correspondence,  post,  pp.  366—380. 


MANNING  153 

To  return  to  the  acts  of  accession  to  the  armed  neutrality.  On  the 
8th  May,  1781,  a  treaty  was  made  between  Prussia  and  Russia,  em- 
bodying the  four  articles  of  the  new  alliance,  and  establishing  Prussia 
as  a  member  of  the  confederacy.^ 

On  the  10th  July,  1781,  a  similar  treaty  was  made  between  Russia 
and  the  Emperor  of  Germany.^ 

A  similar  treaty  was  made  between  Russia  and  Portugal,  dated  the 
13th  July,  1782.-^ 

And  on  the  10th  February,  1783,  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies 
acceded  to  the  northern  confederacy.* 

Thus  had  all  the  principal  continental  Powers  acceded  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  armed  neutrality,  when  its  operations  were  suspended  by 
the  general  peace  of  1783.  In  whatever  point  of  view  we  regard  this 
celebrated  confederacy,  it  is  difficult  to  find  anything  respectable  con- 
nected with  it.  Among  otiiers,  the  following  observations  suggest 
themselves.  I.  The  abandonment  of  principle  for  interest  marks  the 
commencement  of  the  armed  neutrality;  an  open  breach  of  faith  being 
made  by  the  two  Powers  that  first  joined  Russia  in  the  associa- 
tion. II.  The  ready  manner  in  which  one  party  of  the  belligerent 
States  acceded  to  the  novel  principles,  was  itself  a  proof  that  these 
principles  were  inconsistent  with  the  duties  of  neutrality,  as  they 
evidently  assisted  one  side  in  the  contest,  and  injured  the  opposed 
State,  which  refused  to  acquiesce  in  these  pretentions.  The  declaration 
of  France  and  Spain  therefore,  that  they  approved  of  the  northern 
alliance,  was  a  disproof,  not  a  sanction,  of  the  justice  of  the  con- 
federacy ;  and  States,  with  the  title  of  an  armed  neutrality,  undertook 
to  interfere  in  the  issue  of  a  war,  by  measures  which  directly  assisted 
one,  and  directly  injured  the  other,  belligerent.  III.  A  principle  which 
the  northern  confederacy  undertook  to  establish  as  a  fundamental  right 
of  neutrality,  was  then  for  the  first  time  heard  of  in  Europe;  for  the 
second  article  of  the  statement  of  principles  declares  that  "free  ships 
shall  make  free  goods,"  but  does  not  convey  the  corresponding  stipula- 
tion that  "enemy's  ships  shall  make  enemy's  goods."  The  latter  en- 
gagement is  never  once  referred  to  in  any  of  the  documents  creating 
the  armed  neutrality.  But  never  had  there  been,  among  Christian 
Powers,  a  treaty  which  conveyed  the  former  immunity  without  also 


iMay  19,  1781,  new  style.     Post,  p.  397. 
2See  footnote  2,  f>ost,  p.  403. 
3Tulv  24.  1782,  new  style.     Post,  p.  420. 
^February  21,  1783,  new  style.     Post,  p.  433. 


154  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

engaging  the  latter  privilege.  One  principle  had  invariably  been  con- 
veyed in  exchange  for  the  other.  But  the  framers  of  the  armed 
neutrality,  relying  upon  the  imposing  aspect  of  their  union,  and  upon 
Great  Britain  having  already  to  cope  with  several  enemies,  defied  at 
once  precedent  and  principle,  and  attempted  to  establish  by  force  what 
their  own  subsequent  conduct  proved  them  not  to  have  regarded  as 
a  right,  and  what  never  had  been  claimed  as  such  by  any  Government 
whatever.  IV.  The  number  of  the  States  that  joined  in  the  confederacy 
does  not  in  the  least  aflfect  the  question  of  the  right  of  the  principle 
which  they  sought  to  establish.  An  universal,  or  even  general,  con- 
tinued acquiescence  in  any  given  state-principle,  may  make  it  probable 
that  such  a  principle  is  based  on  universal  law.  But  no  combination 
of  States  can  establish  that  as  a  part  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  is 
not  dependent  upon  natural  equity,  nor  can  they,  rightfully,  make  the 
observance  of  any  stipulation  incumbent  upon  any  but  the  contracting 
Parties.  A  glance  at  the  position  of  the  European  Powers,  at  the  time 
of  the  armed  neutrality,  will  destroy  any  belief  that  the  principles  of 
the  confederacy  must  have  been  just  because  they  were  so  generally 
recognized.  Russia,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  the  United  Provinces, 
had  the  most  direct  and  immediate  interest  in  the  pretensions  which 
they  engaged  to  defend.  Remaining  neutral  at  a  time  when  some  of 
the  greatest  commercial  States  were  at  war.  their  shipping  interest  would 
be  incalculably  benefited  if  they  could  carry  on  trade,  "not  with,  but 
for,"  the  belligerent  countries,  and  transport  the  property  of  the  sub- 
jects of  the  latter  exempt  from  the  capture  of  the  adverse  party.  On 
the  other  hand,  France  and  Spain  had  equally  a  direct  interest  in  the 
principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  because,  from  their  naval  inferior- 
ity, they  were  unable  to  carry  on  their  commerce  themselves,  and  were 
glad  to  commit  their  property  to  the  safe  custody  of  neutral  bottoms 
if  these  secured  their  cargoes  from  capture.  Thus  all  the  principal 
parties  to  this  alliance  were  directly  interested  in  the  claims  thereby 
advanced.  But,  as  a  test  of  the  sincerity  of  their  professions,  it  will 
be  as  well  to  consider  whether  these  same  parties  had  adhered  to  these 
principles  before  this  particular  contingency  arose,  or  whether  they 
maintained  them  after  this  transient  advantage  had  passed  away? 
With  regard  to  the  former,  it  is  notorious  that  the  maritime  codes  of 
France  and  Spain  had  been  of  unusual  severity,  and  that  so  far  from 
sparing  enemies'  goods  on  board  a  neutral  ship,  they  confiscated  such 
neutral  ship  into  the  bargain,  unless  where  special  treaty  came  to  the 


MANNING  155 

rescue  of  the  neutral :  and,  again,  Sweden  and  Denmark  had  treaties, 
which  had  been  in  constant  force  for  more  than  a  century,  engaging 
the  reverse  of  the  principle  of  the  armed  neutrality.  Thus  the  con- 
duct of  these  Powers  had  been  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  novel 
pretension,  before  the  occurrence  of  this  particular  opportunity.  And 
with  respect  to  their  conduct  after  it,  it  must  be  remarked — V,  that 
some  of  the  leading  parties  to  the  armed  neutrality  violated  its  provi- 
sions on  the  very  first  occasion  in  which  they  happened  to  be  belliger- 
ents. In  the  war  between  Sweden  and  Russia,  in  1788,  Gustavus  III 
renounced  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  and  Russia  followed 
the  example,  although  not  with  the  same  open  profession.^  And  this 
was  done  only  five  years  after  one  of  the  treaties  of  the  armed  neutral- 
ity, notwithstanding  the  permanency  which  was  declared  to  be  guaran- 
teed to  the  new  stipulations  by  Article  9  of  the  treaty  of  1780,  affording 
an  obvious  satire  on  the  motives  that  led  to  the  confederacy,  and  to  the 
great  scandal  of  those  writers  who  have  advocated  the  maxims  thus 
attempted  to  be  established.  VI.  Finally,  it  must  be  remarked,  that 
the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  was  attended  by  no  consequence  to 
Great  Britain.  Our  Government  never  once  acceded  to  the  principles 
therein  put  forward,  but  made  emphatic  remonstrance  against  admit- 
ting such  claims.  No  decisive  issue  took  place  between  the  two  Parties, 
the  northern  confederates  having  no  case  for  their  joint  action  against 
our  Government,  and  Great  Britain,  having  already  France,  Spain, 
the  United  States,  and  the  United  Provinces  to  oppose  single-handed, 
was  not  in  a  position  to  take  such  measures  for  the  vindication  of  her 
maritime  rights  as  we  shall  see  she  had  recourse  to  on  a  subsequent 
occasion. 

In  most  of  the  treaties  following  the  restoration  of  peace,  the  princi- 
ple that  "free  ships  make  free  goods,"  and  the  converse,  was  stipulated. 
Before  that  period,  however,  was  made  the  treaty  between  the  United 
States  and  the  United  Provinces,  in  1782,  where  these  two  stipulations 
are  found  in  Articles  11  and  12.^  And  in  the  same  year,  1782,  was 
made  a  treaty  of  commerce  between  Denmark  and  Russia,  where  the 
four  articles  of  the  armed  neutrality  are  embodied  in  Article  17.' 
The  treaty  of  Versailles,  between  France  and  Great  Britain,  in  1783, 
renews  the  treaty  of  commerce  of  1713,  in  which  the  two  clauses  are 


^See  Biisch,  Volkerscerecht,  pp.  34,  36. 
^Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  3,  pp.  439,  441. 
^Ibid.  474. 


156  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

inserted/  which  is  also  done  in  Article  2  of  the  treaty  of  the  same 
date  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain.-  But  no  such  renewal  of  former 
treaties  was  made  in  our  treaty  with  the  United  Provinces,  in  1784." 
The  two  clauses  are  found  in  Articles  7  and  14  of  the  treaty  between 
Sweden  and  the  United  States,  in  1783.*  On  the  contrary,  the  treaty  of 
the  same  year  between  Russia  and  the  Porte,  engages,  Article  43,  that 
Russian  goods  on  board  the  ship  of  an  enemy  of  the  Porte  shall  not  be 
confiscated,  nor  the  merchants  made  slaves,  if  they  be  there  for  peace- 
ful purposes, — being  in  accordance  with  the  old  rule.  This  treaty  was 
renewed  by  the  treaty  of  Jassy  in  1792.^ 

In  the  treaty  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States,  in  1785,  the 
twelfth  article  engages  a  treatment  similar  to  the  second  article  of 
the  armed  neutrality,  that  is,  it  stipulates  that  the  goods  of  enemies 
shall  be  free  on  board  the  ships  of  friends,  without  conveying  the 
counter  stipulation  that  the  goods  of  friends  shall  be  confiscated  if 
found  on  board  the  ships  of  enemies.^  The  treaty  between  France 
and  the  United  Provinces,  in  1785,  renews,  by  Article  8,  the  articles 
of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  stipulated  that  "free  ships  make  free 
goods,"  and  the  converse.^  The  treaty  between  Austria  and  Russia, 
of  the  same  year,  renews  the  engagements  of  the  armed  neutrality, 
by  Article  12.®  The  treaty  of  commerce  between  Great  Britain  and 
France,  in  1786,  engages  that  "free  ships  make  free  goods,"  and  the 
converse,  by  Articles  20  and  29.°  The  treaty  between  France  and 
Russia,  in  1787,  renews  the  engagements  of  the  armed  neutrality,  by 
Article  27/°  which  is  also  done  by  the  treaty  between  Russia  and  the 
King  of  the  Sicilies,  of  the  same  year.  Article  18  /^  and,  again,  by  the 
treaty  between  Russia  and  Portugal,  also  of  1787,  Article  22.^-  In  a 
treaty,  of  the  same  year,  between  the  United  States  and  Morocco,  it 
was  agreed.  Article  3,  that  enemies'  goods  should  be  free  on  board 
neutral  vessels ;  and  also,  that  neutral  goods  should  be  free  on  board 
an  enemy's  vessel.  And  the  same  stipulation  is  made  by  the  treaty  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Tripoli,  in  1796,  and  between  the  United 
States  and  Tunis,  in  1797.^^  In  the  treaty  of  commerce  between  France 
and  Hamburgh,  in  1789,  the  engagements  of  the  armed  neutrality  are 


iMartens,  Recucil,  vol.  3,  p.  521.  ^Ibid.  543. 

3/fcid.  560.  *Ibid.  568,  572. 

^Ibid.  635,  and  vol.  5,  p.  293.  ^Ibid.,  vol.  4,  p.  42. 

■'Ibid.  68.  «Ibid.  76. 

^Ibid.  168,  172.  io//uW.  210. 

^^Ibid.  236.  ^^Ibid.  327. 
^^Ibid.  248,  and  vol.  6,  pp.  298,  406. 


MANNING  157 

stipulated  by  Article  2}  In  the  treaty,  also  of  1789,  between  Denmark 
and  Genoa,  the  engagements  that  "free  ships  make  free  goods,"  and 
the  converse,  are  agreed  to  by  Articles  5  and  9.' 

Such  a  collection  of  treaties,  agreeing  in  the  principle  that  the  cargo 
shall  be  free,  or  be  confiscated,  according  as  the  ship  is  neutral  or 
enemy,  seem  to  go  far  in  establishing,  not  that  this  principle  was 
enforced  by  the  law  of  nations  independent  of  treaty,  but  that  it 
was  the  general  wish  of  maritime  Powers  that  this  practice  should 
be  adopted,  and  that  it  might  probably  become  the  conventional  law  of 
Europe,  among  those  States,  and  only  those  States,  which  were  entering 
into  these  engagements. 

But  such  an  opinion  was  soon  proved  fallacious  by  the  result.  Not 
fifteen  years  from  the  date  of  the  armed  neutrality,  the  wars  with 
France  had  involved  almost  every  European  State ;  and  the  principle 
which  appeared  obtaining  such  general  prevalence  was  abandoned  by 
nearly  all  the  members  of  the  northern  confederacy,  the  great  leader 
in  that  alliance,  Russia,  being  the  chief  instigator  of  the  unusual 
severities  which  were  adopted  towards  neutrals. 

Page  2^4. — We  now  come  to  the  period  when,  by  the  second  armed 
neutrality,  in  the  year  1800,  an  attempt  was  again  made  to  force  on 
this  country  the  recognition  of  the  principle  that  "free  ships  make 
free  goods."  The  second  armed  neutrality  differs  from  the  first  in 
many  important  particulars :  It  had  its  origin  in  discussions  regarding 
the  right  of  searching  merchants  ships  sailing  under  the  protection  of 
convoy, — which  will  be  considered  in  a  subsequent  chapter  on  the 
right  of  search.  The  irritation  produced  by  this  discussion  had  been 
aggravated  by  the  capture,  under  questionable  circumstances,  of  two 
Spanish  frigates  by  the  British,  who  had  taken  possession  of  a  Swedish 
ship  in  the  port  of  Barcelona,  during  the  night,  and  under  cover  of 
her  neutral  flag  had  surprised  and  taken  two  Spanish  frigates  lying 
under  the  batteries  of  Barcelona.  These  dififerences  might,  however, 
have  been  amicably  terminated,  but  for  the  disappointment  of  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  regarding  the  island  of  Malta,  which  he  expected 
to  have  had  given  up  to  him  by  the  British.  Lord  Whitworth,  who 
had  been  sent  to  Copenhagen  on  a  special  mission  regarding  the  Danish 
convoy,  had  concluded,  on  the  29th  August.  1800,  a  convention,  in 
which  that  dispute  was  adjusted  in  a  friendly  manner.^    But  before  this 

^Ibid.,  vol.  4,  p.  426.  ^Ibid.  442,  443.  ^Post,  p.  492. 


158  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

could  be  known  at  St.  Petersburgh,  the  Emperor  Paul  had  issued  a 
declaration,  dated  15/27  August,  inviting  the  Courts  of  Sweden,  Prus- 
sia, and  Denmark,  to  re-unite  in  a  confederacy  for  an  armed  neutral- 
ity, and  giving  the  British  conduct  in  regard  to  the  Danish  convoy  as 
a  reason  for  such  an  alliance.  On  learning  that  the  British  squadron, 
sent  to  support  the  representations  of  Lord  Whitworth,  had  passed  the 
Sound,  the  Emperor  Paul  laid  an  embargo  on  all  British  property  in 
his  dominions,  which  embargo  was  taken  off  on  the  convention  between 
Great  Britain  and  Denmark  being  known  at  St.  Petersburgh.^ 

On  the  surrender  of  Malta  to  the  British  in  September,  1800,  the 
Emperor  Paul  claimed  this  island  from  our  Government,  alleging  his 
convention  of  1798,  in  which,  however,  there  was  not  a  single  clause, 
affording  not  only  a  reason,  but  even  a  pretext,  for  such  a  demand.^ 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Paul  had  become  Grand  Master  of  the 
Knights  of  Malta,  a  fantastic  attachment  to  that  order  being  one  of  the 
many  points  which  gave  color  to  the  suspicion  of  his  insanity.  Vexa- 
tion at  the  refusal  of  the  British  to  comply  with  his  request,  induced 
him  to  resort  to  the  first  means  that  offered  of  injuring  this  country, 
and  in  spite  of  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  of  which 
the  twelfth  article  expressly  forbade  that,  in  case  of  rupture,  the 
goods  or  persons  of  the  subjects  of  either  country  should  be  detained 
or  confiscated  he  laid  an  embargo  on  all  British  property  in  his  domin- 
ions; and  a  British  merchantman  having  managed  to  escape  from 
Narva,  he  ordered  that  another  British  vessel  should  be  burned.^ 

While  in  this  state  of  incipient  hostility,  Russia  concluded  with 
Sweden,  on  the  4/16  December,  1800,  a  treaty  renewing  the  confed- 
eracy for  an  armed  neutrality.  The  principles  declared  to  be  estab- 
lished by  this  treaty.  Article  3,  were  as  follows : 

I.  That  any  vessel  may  freely  sail  from  port  to  port,  and  on  the 
coasts  of  nations  at  war. 

II.  That  property  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  belligerent  Powers 
shall  be  free  on  board  the  ships  of  neutrals,  excepting  goods  that  are 
contraband. 

III.  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  term 
shall  only  be  allowed  to  ports  where,  from  the  arrangements  of  the 
Power  which  is  attacking  with  vessels  stationary  and  sufficiently  close, 

^Post,  pp.  489,  493. 

2See  the  treaty,  which  is  a  treaty  of  subsidy.  Martens,  Recucil,  vol.  6,  p.  557. 

^Post,  p.  516. 


MANNING  159 

there  is  an  evident  danger  in  entering;  and  that  any  vessel  saiHng 
tow^ards  a  blockaded  port  shall  not  be  regarded  as  contravening  the 
present  convention,  unless,  after  having  been  warned  of  the  state  of 
the  port  by  the  commander  of  the  blockading  squadron,  she  shall 
attempt  to  enter,  employing  either  force  or  fraud. 

IV.  That  neutral  vessels  may  not  be  detained  except  on  just  grounds 
and  evident  facts;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  without  delay,  that  the 
process  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and  that  in  every 
instance,  besides  an  indemnity  to  parties  who  have  suffered  loss  with- 
out having  committed  wrong,  there  shall  be  afforded  a  complete  satis- 
faction for  the  insult  offered  to  the  flag  of  Their  Majesties. 

V.  That  the  declaration  of  the  officer  commanding  the  ship  or  ships 
of  the  royal  or  imperial  navy,  accompanying  a  convoy  of  one  or  more 
merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  has  not  on  board  any  goods  that  are 
contraband,  shall  suffice  to  prevent  there  being  any  visitation  for 
search  on  board  his  ship  or  the  ships  of  his  convoy. 

By  subsequent  articles  mutual  assistance  is  promised  in  case  of 
attack.^ 

Articles  to  the  same  effect  were  engaged  by  a  treaty,  of  the  same 
date,  between  Russia  and  Denmark,^  and,  two  days  later,  by  a  treaty 
between  Russia  and  Prussia.^ 

An  account  of  subsequent  proceedings  regarding  this  confederacy 
is  given  in  the  present  treatise,  in  the  chapter  on  the  right  of  search,  to 
which  the  article  on  convoy  seemed  to  make  the  discussion  most  prop- 
erly belong.  It  will  be  only  necessary  here  to  recapitulate  that,  the 
above-named  States  having  joined  themselves  to  a  Power,  after  it  had 
placed  itself  in  a  situation  of  equivocal  amity  with  this  country,  an 
embargo  was  laid  upon  Danish  and  Swedish,  as  well  as  Russian  prop- 
erty, in  British  ports.  Subsequently  the  battle  of  Copenhagen  took 
place,  the  Emperor  Paul  was  assassinated,  and  the  Emperor  Alexan- 
der, immediately  on  his  accession,  made  a  treaty,  which  adjusted  the 
dispute  with  Great  Britain.  In  this  treaty,  dated  5/17  June,  1801, 
Great  Britain  acceded  to  the  proposals  of  the  northern  Courts  regard- 
ing convoy,  and  Russia  agreed  to  the  old  principle,  that  neutral  ships 
should  not  protect  enemies'  property.  By  Article  3,  sec.  2,  it  was 
agreed  that  goods  embarked  in  the  ships  of  neutrals  shall  be  free, 

'^Post,  p.  531. 
^Post,  p.  537. 
^Post,  p.  544. 


160  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

excepting  contraband  of  war  and  the  property  of  enemies.  To  this 
treaty  Denmark  and  Sweden  afterwards  acceded.^  Thus  the  principle 
that  "free  ships  make  free  goods,"  had  been  attempted  to  be  enforced 
by  a  confederacy  which  was  broken  by  a  single  maritime  Power,  and 
the  principle  of  the  old  rule  was  vindicated  and  reestablished.  In  the 
first  armed  neutrality,  Great  Britain,  though  she  never  acquiesced 
in  the  pretensions  of  that  confederacy,  and  formally  protested  against 
them,  yet  had  too  many  foes  at  the  same  time  to  make  an  addition  to 
them  expedient.  But,  in  the  second  armed  neutrality,  we  were 
enabled  to  shew  that  we  would  not  permit  maritime  rights  to  be 
invaded  by  confederates  united  to  subvert  the  law  of  nations  for  their 
own  selfish  purposes ;  we  forced  an  abandonment  of  principles  which 
these  confederates  united  to  defend ;  and  Nelson's  glory  at  Copenhagen 
was  of  the  purest  character,  arising  from  valor  successfully  exercised 
in  the  vindication  of  justice. 

A  treaty  embodying  the  five  articles  of  the  second  armed  neu- 
trality, was  made  between  Russia  and  Sweden  on  the  1/13  of  March, 
1801,^  that  is,  before  the  attack  on  Copenhagen,  and  ratified  at  St. 
Petersburgh  on  the  30  May/11  June,  that  is,  after  the  signature  of  the 
above-named  treaty  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain.  This  merely 
shows  how  completely  impossible  it  is  to  deduce  anything  like  a  system 
from  the  treaties  of  nations  regarding  the  principle  of  "free  ships 
free  goods ;"  Russia,  the  leader  in  both  the  armed  neutralities,  mak- 
ing, in  the  instances  before  us,  a  treaty  embodying  one  principle  with 
Great  Britain,  while  she  ratified,  in  the  very  same  week,  a  treaty  with 
Sweden  containing  exactly  the  reverse  principle. 


MARTENS:  "Le  Centcnaire  dc  la  Declaration  de  Neutralite  de  lySo" 
in  Revue  de  Droit  International  et  de  Legislation  Comparee, 
volume  13.  1881. 

Fedor  Fedorovich  Martens.  Russian  publicist;  born  in  1845;  died  in  1909; 
professor,  diplomat,  and  arbitrator  in  international  controversies ;  member  of 
the  Institute  of  International  Law  ;  member  of  the  permanent  court  of  arbitration 


^See  the  three  treaties,  post,  pp.  595,  606,  and  note. 
^Martens,  Recucil,  vol.  7,  p.  315. 


MARTENS  161 

at  The  Hagne;   Russian  delegate  to  many  international  conferences,   including 
the  two  Hague  Peace  Conferences. 

Among  his  works  on  international  law  the  two  most  important  are  his 
authoritative  treatise  in  Russian  on  international  law  of  civilized  nations,  pub- 
lished in  1882-83,  fifth  edition  in  1904-05,  which  has  been  translated  into  several 
languages,  and  Recucil  des  traites  et  conventions  conclus  par  la  Russie  avec  les 
Puissances  etrangeres,  1874-1909,  15  volumes. 


Page  p4. — It  was  one  hundred  years  ago  on  the  28th  of  February 
(11th  of  March)  of  this  year  that  Catherine  II  established  by  her 
famous  declaration  the  first  armed  neutrality.  All  who  are  interested 
in  the  study  of  international  law  know  the  influence  which  this  act 
of  the  Semiramis  of  the  North  exerted  on  the  progress  of  maritime 
law  and  on  international  relations. 

It  was  Russia's  moral  duty  to  celebrate  the  jubilee  of  an  act  by 
which  it  had  so  justly  acquired  a  right  to  the  gratitude  of  all  nations. 
The  Society  for  the  Encouragement  of  Russi<in  Navigation,  thanks  to 
the  enlightened  energy  of  one  of  its  most  distinguished  members,  Cap- 
tain Berezine,  took  up  the  question  of  how  best  to  do  honor  to  the 
memory  of  the  great  Empress.  A  special  committtee  was  formed 
and  a  program  prepared.  Thanks  to  the  disinterested  cooperation  of 
the  representatives  of  the  imperial  navy  and  of  the  merchant  marine, 
of  merchants  and  of  scientists,  it  was  decided  to  open  a  public  sub- 
scription throughout  Russia  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  fund  of 
several  thousand  rubles,  the  interest  on  which  was  to  be  awarded 
periodically  as  prizes  to  the  authors  of  the  most  meritorious  works  in 
the  field  of  international  maritime  law.  The  subject  selected  for  the 
first  competition  was  "The  history  of  the  declaration  of  Catherine  II ; 
its  influence  on  the  development  of  international  relations  in  time  of 
war  and  its  significance  as  regards  the  progress  of  international  mari- 
time law." 

The  proceedings  of  the  above-mentioned  committee,  as  well  as  the 
decisions  it  has  reached,  have  been  published  in  a  pamphlet.  In  gen- 
eral they  have  been  well  received  by  the  Russian  Press.  Up  to  the 
present  time,  however,  the  fund  necessary  to  carry  out  the  commit- 
tee's program  has  not  reached  the  required  figure.  A  large  amount 
is  needed,  since  the  prizes  to  be  awarded  are  to  consist  of  considerable 
sums  of  money.  Because  of  the  failure  to  procure  the  fund,  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  program  for  the  celebration  of  Catherine  IPs 
declaration,  the   Society  for  the  Encouragement  of  Russian   Naviga- 


162  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tion  deemed  it  necessary  to  abstain  from  taking  an  active  part  in  the 
celebration  of  February  28  of  this  year. 

The  River  Yacht  Club  of  St.  Petersburg  replaced  the  society  on 
this  occasion.  The  honorable  president  of  the  club,  Captain  Brylkine, 
invited  the  public  of  the  capital  to  an  official  meeting  and  he  honored 
me  with  the  request  that  I  deliver  a  lecture  on  this  important  act  of 
the  great  Empress. 

In  my  account  of  the  origin,  and  the  historical  and  legal  scope  of 
the  first  armed  neutrality,  I  was  able  to  profit  by  facts  and  documents 
discovered  in  the  archives  of  the  Russian  Empire,  some  of  which  had 
not  been  made  public.  The  following  are  the  salient  points  of  this  lec- 
ture, which  was  delivered  before  a  large  and  sympathetic  audience. 

After  stating  the  opinions  of  jurists  on  the  declaration  of  February 
28,  1780,  and  pointing  out  the  respect  in  which  most  of  them  hold  this 
act,  I  mentioned  the  opposite  opinion  expressed  by  Wheaton  and  some 
other  writers,  who  asserted  that  the  declaration  was  of  an  accidental 
character  and  the  result  of  a  palace  intrigue  and  the  jealousy  of  two 
courtiers  (Panin  and  Potemkin).  Outlining  the  intolerable  situation 
in  which  neutral  commerce  found  itself  at  that  time  and  demonstrat- 
ing, with  proofs  in  support  of  my  contentions,  the  error  of  Wheaton 
and  his  partisans,  I  endeavored  to  determine  the  real  cause  and  origin 
of  the  declaration.  To  settle  the  question  of  to  whom  belonged  the 
honor  of  drafting  the  document,  whether  to  the  Empress  herself  or 
to  one  of  her  high  officials,  I  gave  a  detailed  character  sketch  of 
Prince  Potemkin  and  Count  Panin.  My  conclusion  was  that  neither 
of  them  understood  the  scope  of  the  declaration,  when  it  was  com- 
municated to  them,  already  drafted,  to  be  put  into  effect.  The  dec- 
laration was  especially  at  variance  with  the  views  and  aspirations  of 
Count  Nikita  Panin,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Was  the  idea  of  establishing  armed  neutrality  suggested  to  Cath- 
erine II  by  her  allies,  the  Emperor  Joseph  II  or  Frederick  the  Great? 
It  was  easy  for  me  to  prove,  with  the  aid  of  authenticated  facts  taken 
from  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg 
with  the  Courts  of  Vienna  and  Berlin,  that  neither  the  Emperor 
Joseph  II  nor  Kaunitz  nor  the  King  of  Prussia  appreciated  the  full 
scope  of  the  step  taken  by  the  Empress  of  Russia.  They  laughed  at 
the  importance  that  the  Empress  attached  to  armed  neutrality,  which 
she  called  her  darling  child.  Hence  no  one  but  the  Empress  Catherine 
herself  could  have  been  the  author  of   the  declaration.     A   careful 


MATZEN  163 

study  of  the  Empress,  of  her  policy,  of  her  incomparable  ability,  of 
her  very  faults,  has  convinced  me  of  the  correctness  of  this  conclu- 
sion. 

After  having  examined  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  declaration 
of  February  28,  I  concluded  my  lecture  with  the  following  words : 

"Respect  for  the  great  deeds  of  our  ancestors,  respect  for  the  his- 
tory of  our  people,  by  strengthening  us  in  our  struggle  with  the  sinis- 
ter forces  that  surround  us,  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  turn  our  eyes 
with  confidence  toward  the  future.  By  respecting  our  history  and 
our  past,  we  come  to  appreciate  the  good  that  is  in  us,  and  we  are 
urged  ever  forward  in  the  development  of  social  organization,  of 
public  order,  and  of  education. 

"May  this  anniversary  recall  to  us  the  position  that  Russia  occu- 
pied in  1780;  may  it  confirm  us  in  the  thought  that  Russian  policy 
met  with  great  success  at  the  very  time  when  Russia  was  giving  atten- 
tive ear  to  the  voice  of  civilized  Europe,  in  order  that  she  might 
climb  higher  and  higher  up  the  ladder  of  intellectual  and  civil  prog- 
ress. Let  us  not  forget  that  it  was  thanks  to  the  declaration,  whose 
centenary  jubilee  we  are  celebrating  to-day,  that  light  was  for  the 
first  time  thrown  upon  international  relations  in  time  of  na\al  war; 
let  us  not  forget  that  this  diffusion  of  light,  of  education,  of  respect 
for  law  and  right,  is  a  lesson  taught  by  the  great  Empress  to  Russian 
societv  of  to-dav." 


MATZEN :  F orelcesninger  over  den  Positive  Folkeret.     Copenhagen, 

1900. 

Henning  Matzen.  Danish  publicist;  born  in  1840;  died  in  1910;  member  of 
the  Institute  of  International  Law ;  professor  of  international  law  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Copenhagen.  In  1879  he  was  elected  member  of  the  senate  and 
occupied  this  position  by  successive  elections  until  his  death.  He  was  many 
times  charged  by  his  Government  with  international  missions  and,  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  permanent  court  of  arbitration,  rendered  marked  service. 

One  of  Matzen's  most  important  contributions  to  international  law  is  his 
Forclcrsninger  over  den  Positive  Folkeret,  a  systematic  exposition  of  positive 
international  law  distinguished  for  its  independent  research. 


164  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

§  2§,  page  j/5. — In  the  matter  of  the  freedom  of  navigation  of  neu- 
tral merchant  ships  in  time  of  war,  the  interests  of  the  belHgerents 
and  those  of  the  neutral  Powers  are  to  a  great  extent  opposed  to  one 
another,  and  through  the  centuries  there  has  therefore  been  conflict 
between  them,  partly  in  regard  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  recognized 
basic  principles  with  reference  to  blockades  and  war  contraband, 
partly  in  reference  to  these  same  principles  in  the  application  of  the 
right  of  neutral  ships  to  transport  enemy  goods,  and  of  the  right  of 
neutral  subjects  to  have  their  goods  carried  in  enemy  ships.  As  to 
the  last-named  point,  a  nearly  general  agreement  has  been  reached  by 
the  Paris  Declaration  of  April  16,  1856,  which  again  followed  the  so- 
called  armed  neutrality  of  July  9,  1780,  about  which  more  will  be 
said  directly. 

With  regard  to  neutral  ships,  there  may  first  be  set  forth  the  rule — 
not  considering  for  the  moment  the  matter  of  blockade — that  regard- 
less of  war,  they  may  sail  not  only  from  one  neutral  port  to  another 
neutral  port,  but  even  from  a  neutral  port  to  the  port  of  a  belligerent 
Power,  and  finally  as  in  time  of  peace,  from  the  port  of  a  belligerent 
Power  to  another  port  of  a  belligerent  Power.  These  principles  were 
not  the  recognized  rule  in  earlier  times,  when,  for  instance,  England 
and  Holland  in  1689  even  prohibited  all  neutral  navigation  to  France, 
and  when,  complaint  having  been  made  in  regard  thereto,  William  III 
said  "that  such  was  the  right  of  the  cannon"  ;^  but  in  the  eighteenth 
century,  it  may  be  said,  that  they  (these  principles)  were  generally 
accepted,  as  in  the  peace  of  Utrecht,  1713,  Article  17;^  but  only  with 
certain  reservations  in  regard  to  England.  During  the  Seven  Years' 
War  she  had  established  the  rule  that  neutral  ships  could  only  sail 
between  enemy  ports  to  the  same  extent  as  was  the  case  in  time  of 
peace.  At  the  time,  this  was  of  considerable  importance  with  regard 
to  expeditions  between  the  mother  country  and  the  colonies ;  but  as 
navigation  is  now  generally  free,  it  is  of  importance  only  with  regard 
to  coastwise  shipping.  The  armed  neutrality  of  1780,  Article  3  (1), 
maintained  expressly:  that  any  vessel  may  sail  freely  from  port  to 
port  and  along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war,  and  this  clause  is  re- 


^Gessner,  p.  34;  Holtzendorff,  vol.  4,  p.  620;  C.  Dupuis,  p.  51;  treaty  with 
England  and  Holland  of  December  18,  1691,  Article  4,  which  only  licensed 
Danish-Norwegian  ships  to  sail  direct  between  Denmark-Norway  and  France ; 
see  also,  treaty  with  France  of  August  23,  1742,  Article  20. 

^Gessner,  p.  285 ;  Godchot,  p.  106. 


MATZEN  165 

asserted  in  the  other  armed  neutrality  of  1800,  Article  3  (1)  ;^  but  Eng- 
land would  not  accept  the  clause,  and  in  the  treaty  between  England 
and  Russia  of  June  17,  1801,  Article  3  (1),  subscribed  to  by  Denmark 
on  October  23  of  the  same  year,  the  clause  is  changed  to  "that  the 
ships  of  the  neutral  Power  may  navigate  freely  to  the  ports,  and  upon 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  -at  war."  This  is  in  conflict  with  the  princi- 
ple established  by  Article  3  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  to  the 
effect  that  ships  of  neutral  Powers  should  be  free  to  sail  from  port  to 
port  and  along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war ;-  and  one  may  there- 
fore not  presume  to  say  with  certainty  that  the  Paris  Declaration 
meant  to  do  away  with  the  restriction  referred  to.  In  connection  with 
this,  we  come  next  to  the  principle  of  continuous  voyage  which  has 
been  developed  by  the  English  juridical  practice,  in  consequence  of 
which  the  said  restriction  could  not  be  evaded  by  having  a  neutral 
ship  carry  goods  from  an  enemy  port, — for  instance,  from  a  French 
colony, — to  a  neutral  place, — for  instance,  to  a  Danish  colony, — and 
forwarding  them  from  there,  on  a  neutral  ship,  to  the  mother  country.' 
The  further  question  may  therefore  be  raised,  whether,  in  time  of 
war,  a  neutral  ship  must  not  be  debarred  from  running  a  belligerent's 
errands  by  exporting  such  trade  as  in  time  of  peace  the  national  ships 
of  the  land  engage  in.  if  by  lawful  authority  they  do  not  possess  the 
exclusive  right  thereto,  as  for  instance,  to  maintain  the  regular  naviga- 
tion between  the  different  parts  of  the  land.^  But  in  this  wide,  indef- 
inite extension,  the  limitation  has,  however,  not  been  definitely  estab- 
lished, and  it  can  not  be  established  without  coming  in  conflict  with 
the  general  rule  relative  to  the  neutral  ships'  freedom  of  navigation 
which  in  every  case  must  enjoy  the  same  right  in  time  of  war  as  in 
time  of  peace,  and  which,  according  to  the  law  in  force,  they  can  only 
forfeit  with  regard  to  the  belligerent  Power  by  transporting  war  con- 
traband for  resistance  or  in  any  other  manner  entering  into  its  mili- 
tary service,  as  for  instance,  by  transporting  its  troops  or  dispatches ; 
or  they  may  be  deprived  of  that  right  when  the  particular  port  is 
closed  to  traffic  by  a  blockade. 

We  come  next  to  the  question  as  to  what  goods  the  neutral  ship 


^Cf.  treaty  with  Prussia  of  June  17,  1818,  Article  16,  which  expressly  repeats 
the  same  clause,  along  with  the  "free  ship,  free  goods"  clause  reproduced  in 
Article   17,  and  the  definition  about  the  efifectivity  of  a  blockade  in   Article   18. 

-Cf.  Gessner,  p.  283 ;  T.  J.  Lawrence,  p.  595. 

^HoltzendorfiF,  vol.  4,  p.  727;  J.  Schovelin,  p.  24. 

■*C.  Dupuis.  p.  151. 


166  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

may  have  on  board.  If  for  the  moment  we  except  the  goods  which 
constitute  war  contraband,  it  has  at  all  times  been  accepted  that  neu- 
tral ships  may  transport  neutral  goods.  The  question  as  to  what 
are  neutral  goods  and  what  enemy  goods,  can  become  an  especially 
practical  one  in  case  transference  has  taken  place  from  an  enemy  to  a 
neutral  subject,  and  for  lack  of  positive  agreement  in  this  matter,  it 
must  be  settled  according  to  the  respective  civil  laws  which  deal  with 
actions  of  acquisition  ;^  but  the  English  law  has  also  established  a 
practice  whose  evident  purpose  it  was  to  include  as  many  goods  as 
possible  in  the  class  of  enemy  goods  and  which,  as  a  result  thereof, 
are  subject  to  capture.  Thus,  goods  continue  to  be  enemy  goods  in 
spite  of  their  sale,  when  this  took  place  in  transitu,  or  when  the  goods 
were  the  products  of  the  enemy  country ;-  or  if  they  belonged  to  one 
established  in  the  same  line  of  business.^ 

Enemy  goods  found  on  a  neutral  ship  were  good  prize.  This  was 
the  rule  according  to  the  Consolato  del  Mare  which  was  generally 
observed,  and  French  legislation  even  extended  the  rule  to  the  eflFect 
that  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ship  rendered  both  the  neutral  goods  on 
the  ship,  and  the  ship  itself  subject  to  capture.*  England,  on  the  other 
hand,  clung  fast  to  the  principles  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare,  as  the 
general  rule,  which  by  way  of  reprisal  might  be  used  against  France, 
or  according  to  the  treaties,  deviated  from,  to  the  advantage  of  any 
privileged  State.^ 

In  opposition  to  the  rule  mentioned,  the  ground  was  broken,  notably 
through  the  efforts  of  Holland,  for  the  conventional  clause,  "free 
ship,  free  goods ;  unf ree  ship,  unf ree  goods ;"  in  other  words,  that 
the  ship's  nationality  was  conclusive  for  the  merchandise  on  board. 
This  standing  rule  was  of  interest  to  the  neutral  Powers,  which  in 
virtue  of  it  could  take  charge  of  the  maritime  importations  and  ex- 
portations  of  the  belligerent  Powers ;  and  it  was  of  interest  to  the 
belligerent  Powers  which  were  not  strong  on  the  seas,  in  so  far  as 
they,  by  its  help,  could  permit  neutral  ships  to  take  charge  of  their 
supplies. 


^C.  Dupuis,  p.  154. 

-Cf.  however,  the  convention  between  Denmark-Norway,  England  and  Russia 
of  1801,  Article  3  (2),  post,  pp.  595,  606;  the  treaty  with  Prussia  of  1818, 
Article  17. 

^C.  Dupuis,  p.  155;  Despagnet,  p.  670. 

*Despagnet,  p.  703 ;  cf.  however,  Gessner,  p.  726. 

''Gessner,  p.  44. 


MATZEN  167 

In  the  interval  between  1650  and  1780,  thirty-six  treaties  were  con- 
cluded which  established  that  clause,  while  only  fifteen  followed  the 
old  rule  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare}  The  rule  was  also  incorporated 
into  the  peace  of  Utrecht  attending  the  agreements  between  France, 
England  and  Holland.  In  the  treaty  between  Denmark-Norway  and 
France  in  1663,  the  same  provision  was  inserted^  as  well  as  in  the 
treaty  of  August  23,  1742,  Article  28;  on  the  other  hand,  however, 
England  would  not  concede  it  to  Denmark-Norway,  for  which  reason 
the  latter  would  not,  in  the  Seven  Years'  War,  venture  to  invoke  it 
with  regard  to  England.'^  But  the  reaction  came  in  1780.  During 
the  North  American  War  of  Independence,  American  corsairs  had 
seized  eight  merchant  ships  on  their  way  from  Archangel  to  London.* 
On  account  of  this,  the  Russian  Empress  sent  a  note  on  August  28, 
1778,  to  the  Danish-Norwegian  Government,  calling  upon  the  latter 
to  enter  into  an  alliance  with  Russia  in  defense  of  the  inviolability 
of  the  navigation  in  the  part  of  the  Northern  Sea  adjoining  the  three 
realms.  This  proposition  gave  Bernstorff  a  more  comprehensive  in- 
sight into  things,  and  on  September  28  he  had  a  proposition  forwarded 
to  the  Russian  Ambassador  for  an  armed  neutrality  alliance.'*  This 
idea  did  not,  however,  from  the  outset  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
Russian  Government.''  But  it  so  happened  that  in  the  month  of  De- 
cember, 1779,  a  Dutch  ship,  carrying  Russian  wheat,  was  seized  by 
Spaniards  who  participated  in  the  war  as  France's  allies,  in  the  Strait 
of  Gibraltar,  and  in  the  month  of  February,  1780,  a  like  fate  was  suf- 
fered by  a  Russian  ship  with  a  like  cargo. ^  These  seizures  so  embit- 
tered the  Russian  Empress  that  on  March  10,  1780,  she  issued  a 
manifesto  regarding  Russia's  conception  of  the  legal  relations  of  the 
neutrals  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  set  forth  by  BernstorflF.*  And 
thus  the  remarkable  thing  happened  that  though  Spain's  proceeding 
had  caused  the  forthcoming  of  the  manifesto,  the  sting  in  it  neverthe- 
less rebounded  upon  England,  and  especially  in  so  far  as  concerned 


^Despagnet,  p.  704;  Gessner,  p.  44. 

2Reedtz,  p.  114;  Holtzendorff,  vol.  4,  p.  620. 

^Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III_5,  p.  23;  P.  Vedel.  p.  34;  J.  Schovelin,  p.  12.  Pro- 
fessor Martin  Hiibner  answered  these  with  vigor ;  see  Hiibner,  p.  17 ;  Gessner, 
Preface,  p.  ix  and  p.  32. 

^Fauchille,  p.  216;  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III— 5,  p.  14. 

^Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III— 5,  p.  16. 

^Fauchille,  p.  253. 

-^Ihid.,  pp.  308,  312. 

^Holtzendorff,  vol.  4,  p.  624. 


168  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  other  clause  of  the  manifesto :  free  ship,  free  goods.  With  the 
manifesto  went  a  request  to  the  different  Powers,  especially  Denmark- 
Norway,^  to  draft  an  outline  for  a  neutrality  alliance.  Bernstorff, 
who  disapproved  of  the  Empress'  manner  of  proceeding,  because  he 
wanted  to  continue  on  good  terms  with  England,  could  not,  however, 
disown  the  product  of  his  own  mind,  and  accordingly,  he  forwarded 
an  outline  conformable  to  the  principles  he  had  set  up,  to  which  the 
Russian  Government  made  different  formal  changes  and  real  addi- 
tions which  Bernstorfif  found  not  to  his  liking,  but  which,  after  certain 
formalities,  he  thought  it  nevertheless  necessary  to  accept ;  and  on 
July  9,  1780,  there  was  concluded  a  maritime  convention  between  Den- 
mark and  Russia  for  the  maintenance  of  the  freedom  of  commerce 
and  of  neutral  navigation,^  generally  called  the  armed  neutrality,  be- 
cause the  contracting  Parties  plighted  one  another,  by  armed  force 
to  defend  the  rights  established  in  the  convention  in  the  interest  of 
the  subjects  of  the  neutral  Powers.  This  convention  was  acceded  to 
by  Sweden,  September  9,  1780;^  by  Holland,  January  4,  1781;*  by 
Prussia,  May  8,  1781;  by  Austria,  July  10,  1781;  by  Portugal,  July 
13,  1782  f  by  the  Two  Sicilies,  February  10,  1783.  Of  the  belligerent 
Powers,  France  and  Spain  accepted  the  convention  on  July  27  and 
August  4,  1780,  respectively.*^  England,  on  the  other  hand,  would  not 
approve  of  it." 

The  convention  was  concluded  for  the  duration  of  the  war  then 
being  waged,  and  under  it  England's  position  had  remained  so  serious 
that  she  dared  not  expose  herself  to  a  conflict  with  the  allied  neutral 
Powers  by  continuing  her  former  manner  of  proceeding  which  was 
in  conflict  with  the  convention.  The  latter  had  incorporated  in  its 
Article  9:  all  that  has  been  stipulated  and  agreed  upon,  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  permanent  and  shall  constitute  the  law  to  be  applied  in 
matters  pertaining  to  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  in  cases  in- 
volving the  rights  of  neutral  nations.^ 


ipauchille,  p.  318. 

^Ibid.,  p.  402:  Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III-5,  p.  109;  J.  Schovelin,  p.  211;  Aage 
Friis,  p.  188. 

spauchille,  pp.  43,  484. 

*Ibid.,  p.  513. 

■'Ibid.,  p.  552. 

oGodchot,  p.  120. 

■'Ibid. 

**See  treaty  of  commerce  with  Russia  of  October  19,  1782,  Article  16,  in  which 
the  contracting  Parties  declare  their  will  to  regard  the  armed  neutrality  act  as 


MATZEN  169 

Nevertheless,  so  all-encompassing  and  durable  an  importance  was 
not  the  destiny  of  the  convention.  The  Empress  of  Russia  herself 
abandoned  it  with  regard  to  England  in  order  to  secure  free  action  in 
Poland;^  and  then  in  the  face  of  the  convention  of  ISIarch  27,  1794, 
concluded  by  the  pressure  of  the  Powers  allied  against  France,-  for 
the  defense  of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  Den- 
mark-Norway and  Sweden  did  not  invoke  the  armed  neutrality,  but 
returned  to  the  earlier  convention  of  neutrality,  concluded  between 
them  in  1756,^  and  only  appealed  to  the  treaties  and  the  generally 
accepted  principles  of  international  law. 

On  the  other  hand,  upon  the  initiative  of  Emperor  Paul,  the  armed 
neutrality  was  renewed  between  Denmark-Norway,  Sweden  and  Rus- 
sia, December  16.  1800;*  Prussia  acceded  to  it  April  2.  1801.  But 
in  the  meantime  the  situation  had  changed ;  England  both  could  and 
would  protest  against  the  adopted  "new  code  of  maritime  laws" ;''  and 
to  assert  the  heretofore  prevailing  maritime  law,  she  answered  it  im- 
mediately by  placing  an  embargo  upon  and  by  seizing  Russian,  Swed- 
ish and  Danish-Norwegian  ships,  as  well  as  by  dispatching  a  fleet 
against  Copenhagen  in  the  roadway  of  which  port  a  battle  was  fought, 
after  which  Denmark  concluded  a  truce  with  England  on  the  ninth 
day  of  the  same  month,  in  virtue  of  which  accession  to  the  armed 
neutrality  should  be  withheld  in  so  far  as  Denmark-Norway  was  con- 
cerned, while  the  truce  remained  in  force.  Thereafter  a  new  con- 
vention was  entered  into  by  Russia  and  England,  June  17,  1801,  to 
which  new  articles  were  added  on  October  20  of  the  same  year.  Den- 
mark-Norway joined  in  this  convention  on  October  23,  1801.  As  the 
result  of  this,  all  the  main  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  were 
either  altogether  abandoned  or  weakened. 

By  the  manifesto  of  November  7.  1807,  Russia  once  more  recognized 
the  basic  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  but  only  to  forsake  them 
anew,  a  short  time  after,  with  regard  to  England  f  on  the  other  hand. 
Denmark  still  persisted  in  making  her  own  the  principle  "free  ship, 


"the  immutable  rule  of  their  own  conduct  and  to  avail  themselves  of  it  on 
every  occasion  as  embodying  laws  and  stipulations  worthy  of  a  distinguished 
rank  in  the  code  of  humanity." 

IE.  Holm,  vol.  1,  p.  63. 

^Posf,  p.  440;  E.  Holm,  vol.  1.  p.  95. 

sp.  Vedel,  p.  34;  E.  Holm.  vol.  1,  pp.  96.  99. 

*Posf.  pp.  531.  537;  E.  Holm,  vol.  2,  p.  344. 

sGodchot,  p.  132. 

sHoltzendorff,  vol.  4,  p.  630. 


170  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

free  goods"  as  an  unalterable  basic  principle  ;^  in  the  war  against 
England;^  and  Germany.^  During  the  Crimean  War,  England  gave 
in  for  the  first  time,  and  the  clause  was  generally  accepted  under  the 
Paris  Declaration  of  April  16,  1856.* 

While  therefore  the  armed  neutrality  established  the  principle  "free 
ship,  free  goods,"  it  did  not,  on  the  other  hand,  consider  the  fate  which 
might  befall  neutral  goods  carried  in  enemy  ship  which  according  to 
the  Consolato  del  Mare  should  be  free.  This  omission  was  a  natural 
consequence  of  the  fact  that  the  settlement  of  this  matter  was  of  less 
concern  to  the  neutral  Powers  which,  above  all  things,  would  protect 
in  time  of  war,  the  navigation  of  their  subjects.  Inasmuch  as  neutral 
subjects,  after  the  outbreak  of  war,  would  of  course  not  ship  their 
goods  by  enemy  ship,  the  question  was  in  fact  only  of  interest  with 
regard  to  the  neutral  goods  which,  before  the  outbreak  of  the  war, 
were  loaded  on  ships  belonging  to  the  subject  of  a  belligerent  Power, 
especially  in  case  the  war  had  been  begun  without  a  previous  declaration 
of  war ;  though  in  regard  to  this  question,  many  a  treaty,  for  instance, 
the  Utrecht  treaty,  Article  27,  established  an  exception  to  the  advantage 
of  such  neutral  goods.  The  Anglo-American  law  clung  to  the  afore- 
mentioned rule  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  as  common  law  f  while  the 
French  law  upheld  the  reverse  rule  which,  in  consequence,  is  likewise 
incorporated  in  the  French  treaties,  for  mstance,  in  the  Utrecht  treaty 
of  1713  between  France,  England  and  Holland;^  and  of  August  23, 
1742,  Article  28.  In  the  war  with  England,  Denmark  clung  likewise 
to  the  rule  "unfree  ship,  unfree  goods"  i"^  and  in  the  war  against  the 
German  alliance,  but  only  in  case  neutral  goods  had  been  placed  on 
board  enemy  ships  after  the  time  when  a  declared  and  effective  block- 
ade may  with  certainty  be  accepted  as  having  been  known  at  the  place 


iSee  treaty  with  Prussia  of  1818,  Article  17. 

2Rescript  of  November  4,  1807;  Regulations  of  March  28,  1910,  Article  8. 

^Regulations  of  May  1,  1848,  Article  11,  b. 

^See  treaty  with  Venezuela  of  December  19,  1862,  Article  16,  by  which  Eng- 
land accepted  it  in  exchange  for  the  abolition  of  privateering.  Nor  did  the 
Powers  which  did  not  accede  to  the  Declaration  (North  America.  Spain  and 
Mexico)  oppose  it,  but  they  were  against  the  abolition  of  privateering  if  along 
with  this  the  inviolability  of  private  property  on  the  seas  was  not  recognized. 
Since  1799  North  America  had  vigorously  championed  the  recognition  of  the 
clause  in  question.  See  Gessner,  pp.  56,  67;  Revue  generale  de  droit  interna- 
tional public,  vol.  5,  p.  762;  documents,  pp.  10,  14. 

5See  treaty  of  July  11,  1670,  Article  20. 

^Gessner,  p.  276;  with  regard  to  Denmark,  see  treaty  with  France  of  1663; 
Reedtz,  p.  114. 

"Regulations  of  March  28,  1810,  Article  9. 


AIATZEN  171 

of  loading.^  The  Paris  Declaration  of  April  16,  1856,  Rule  3,  sets 
forth  that  "neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war, 
are  not  liable  to  capture  under  enemy's  flag."  The  clause  is  likewise 
followed  by  the  Powers  which  have  not  formally  joined  in  the  Declara- 
tion.^ The  general  rule  is  therefore,  that  the  flag  protects  the  goods, 
excepting  war  contraband,  but  does  not  confiscate  it. 

An  exception  is,  however,  made  to  the  "free  ship,  free  goods,  and 
unf ree  ship,  free  goods"  clause  established  by  the  Paris  Declaration ; 
this  is  in  reference  to  war  contraband  {contrehande  de  guerre,  contre- 
bande  militaire) ,^  or  as  this  can  in  a  general  way  be  expressed;  neces- 
saries of  war.  These  may  not  be  transported  from  a  neutral  to  a 
belligerent  land,  because  help  may  not  be  extended  by  a  neutral  land 
for  the  conduct  of  the  war,  with  the  general  reservation,  however,  that 
in  this  respect  the  neutral  State  incur  no  obligation  of  vigilance  and 
punishment;  except  to  see  to  it  that  the  belligerent  Power  is  given 
authority,  within  certain  limits,  to  exercise  itself  the  vindication  of 
justice  with  regard  to  the  individuals  guilty  of  the  violation  of  the  law 
of  nations. 

While  in  theory  and  in  practice  there  is  a  fundamental  agreement 
in  the  sphere  of  international  law,  there  are,  on  the  other  hand,  diffi- 
culties as  to  the  limitation  of  the  concept  "contraband."  In  former 
times  efforts  were  made  to  clear  up  the  difficulties  in  the  matter  through 
conventional  adjustments;  as  for  instance,  in  the  Utrecht  treaty  of 
1713;  in  the  neutrality  treaty  of  December  16,  1800,  Article  2,  and  in 
others.*  Such  a  definition  of  limitation  is  also  contained  in  the  treaty 
with  England  of  July  11,  1670,  Article  5,  to  the  effect  that  the  con- 
tracting States  would  mutually  neither  procure,  nor  permit  their  sub- 
jects to  procure  soldiers,  weapons,  ships  or  anything  else  which  might 
he  serviceable  or  necessary  for  war  purposes.  These  last  words,  in  the 
meanwhile,  were  being  interpreted  in  the  most  unwarrantable  manner 
in  the  practice  of  the  English  prize  courts;^  in  1779,  salted  meats  were 


^Regulations  of  May  1,  1848,  §  6a. 

-Revue  generate  de  droit  international  public,  vol.  5,  pp.  760-761. 

^Marquardsen,  p.  32. 

*R.  Kleen,  p.  17;  cf.  treaty  with  France,  1663;  Reedtz,  p.  114;  and  the  treaty 
of  August  23,  1742,  Articles  26-27,  which  defined  the  concept  both  positively 
and  negatively;  the  treaty  with  Holland  of  June  15,  1701,  Article  13;  with 
Russia  of  October  19,  1782,  Article  21 ;  with  Prussia  of  June  17,  1818,  Article 
21;  with  Brazil  of  April  26,  1828,  Article  10;  and  with  the  Dominican  RepubHc 
of  July  26,  1852.  Article  13. 

sp.  Vedel,  p.  114. 


172  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

even  declared  to  be  contraband/  This  ruling  so  stirred  A.  P.  Bern- 
storff  that  he  had  an  "earnest"  conversation  with  the  English  Ambas- 
sador, with  the  result  that,  under  the  pressure  of  the  circumstances, 
England  proposed  a  thorough  examination  of  the  treaty  of  July  11, 
1670,  which,  upon  the  suggestion  of  Bernstorff  was  confined  to  a 
revision  of  the  provision  in  Article  3  in  respect  of  contraband.  The 
negotiations  led  to  the  agreement  of  July  4,  1780,  which  authentically 
interpreted  the  said  provision.  Since  the  neutrality  act  of  July  9, 
1780,  Article  3,  made  the  provision  regarding  war  contraband  de- 
pendent upon  the  existing  treaties,  among  which  was  the  treaty  of 
July  11,  1670,  whose  Article  3  is  interpreted  in  the  agreement  to  the 
advantage  of  Denmark  with  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  English 
maritime  courts,  the  agreement  was  in  no  way  in  conflict  with  the 
neutrality  act ;  but  Guldberg  availed  himself  of  its  conclusion  to  cause 
the  downfall  of  Bernstorff.^ 


NYS:  Le  Droit  International,  les  Principes,  les  Theories,  les  Faits. 
New  edition.    Brussels,  1912. 

Ernest  Nys.  Contemporary  Belgian  publicist;  born  in  1851;  professor  of  in- 
ternational law  at  the  University  of  Brussels ;  member  of  the  Institute  of  In- 
ternational Law ;  member  of  the  permanent  court  of  arbitration.  He  is  the 
author  of  many  works  on  special  branches  of  the  subject  of  international  law 
and  is  a  frequent  contributor  to  Ll:e  periodicals.  Among  his  numerous  works, 
in  addition  to  the  above  systematic  treatise,  the  first  edition  of  which  appeared 
in  1904-06,  may  be  mentioned  Le  droit  de  la  guerre  et  les  precurseurs  de  Grotius, 
1882,  and  Les  origines  du  droit  international,  1894.  The  Anglo-American  inter- 
pretation of  international  law  by  courts  and  jurists  has  been  one  of  his  special 
fields  of  study,  and  he  is  well  known  as  the  French  translator  of  Westlake  and 
Lorimer. 


Volume  s,  page  yS6. — We  have  recalled  how,  on  March  17,  1693, 
Denmark  and  Sweden  signed  a  treaty,  which  is  perhaps  the  first  ex- 
ample of  a  league  to  assert  the  rights  O'f  neutrality.  In  1780  there 
were  concluded  between  Russia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden  conventions 
likewise  intended  to  uphold  the  rights  of  non-belligerents  against  the 


^Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III-5,  p.  121;  J.  Schovelin,  p.  214. 
-Historisk  Tidsskrift,  III-5,  p.  119;  Aage  Friis,  p.  213. 


NYS  173 

pretensions  of  belligerents,  to  which  conventions  a  number  of  mari- 
time States  acceded.  History  calls  this  agreement  of  1780  "the  armed 
neutrality  league." 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  of  the  English  Colonies  in  America 
is  dated  July  4,  1776.  On  February  6,  1778,  Ix)uis  XVI,  King  of 
France,  who  had  already  authorized  his  subjects  to  carry  munitions  of 
war  to  the  Americans,  formally  recognized  the  United  States  as  an 
independent  nation  and  concluded  with  them  a  real  treaty  of  alliance 
in  the  form  of  a  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce.  On  March  15,  1778, 
the  French  Ambassador  informed  the  Court  of  London  of  the  signing 
of  the  treaty.  This  was  the  signal  for  war.  The  family  pact  signed 
at  Paris  on  August  15,  1761,  between  the  King  of  France  and  the  King 
of  Spain,  binding  both  the  reigning  sovereigns  and  their  descendants 
and  heirs,  was  destined  to  draw  Spain  into  the  hostilities.  Charles  III 
vainly  endeavored  to  play  the  part  of  mediator;  on  June  16,  1779,  he 
was  forced  to  make  war  on  (ireat  Britain. 

Spain  and  Great  Britain  put  into  operation  the  most  rigorous  meas- 
ures with  regard  to  neutrals  on  the  sea.  "Great  Britain,"  says  a 
writer,  "who  was  the  most  directly  interested  in  the  argument,  re- 
garding the  Americans  as  rebels,  claimed  the  right  to  prohibit  neutral 
Powers  to  have  any  commercial  intercourse  with  her  insurgent  colo- 
nies. English  admiralty  judges — and  the  most  formidable  opponent 
of  the  rights  of  neutrals  among  them  was  Sir  James  Marriott — ap- 
plied in  the  matter  of  blockade  and  contraband  of  war  theories  that 
were  very  elastic  and  fatal  to  neutral  commerce.  The  privateers  of 
Great  Britain,  feeling  assured  that  they  would  very  seldom,  not  to  say 
never,  be  condemned  to  pay  expenses,  still  less  damages,  became  the 
scourge  of  neutral  commerce."^  In  the  treaty  which  she  had  con- 
cluded with  the  United  States  on  February  6,  1778,  France  had  recog- 
nized the  inviolability  of  a  neutral  flag,  and  if  she  had  not  in  her 
regulations  of  July  26,  1778,  abandoned  the  traditional  principles  of 
her  marine  legislation,  she  had  tempered  them  with  moderation. 

It  has  not  yet  been  definitely  ascertained  whether  the  credit  of  hav- 
ing conceived  the  idea  of  solemnly  declaring  the  rights  of  neutrals 
against  unjust  pretensions  belongs  to  Catherine  II,  Empress  of  Russia, 
to  Charles  Gravier  de  \^ergennes.  Secretary  of  State  of  Louis  XVI  of 


^Ch.  de  Boeck,  Dc  la  prof-riete  privec  evnemie  sous  pavilion  ennemi,  p.  57. 


174  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

France,  or  to  Andrew  von  Bernstorff,  Minister  of  Charles  VII  of  Den- 
mark. Justice  requires  us  to  divide  the  honor,  but  it  is  proper  to  call 
attention  to  the  part  played  by  Vergennes.  "The  union  of  neutrals 
was  his  work,"  says  a  writer,  "and  he  succeeded  in  formulating  a  mas- 
terly conception,  which  brought  forth  only  beneficial  results.  The  Sec- 
retary of  State  had  conceived  that  measure  even  before  the  signing  of 
the  treaty  of  alliance  with  America.  His  object  was  to  deprive  the 
English  of  the  mighty  power  which  the  sovereign  possession  of  the 
sea  assured  to  them.  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Russia  were  so 
situated  geographically  that  they  could  enjoy,  like  England,  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  sea ;  but  between  all  these  countries  and  England  there 
were  strong  ties,  either  close  political  ties  or  those  that  were  almost 
as  irresistible,  created  by  the  fear  of  displeasing  the  harsh  and  vindic- 
tive Power  which  the  downfall  of  France  had  for  twenty  years  made 
mistress  of  Europe.  M.  de  Vergennes  was  too  well  aware  of  this 
situation  to  think  of  attacking  it  from  the  front.  His  economic  sense 
and  the  ideas  that  it  gives  enlightened  the  politician  in  him.  .  .  . 
He  perceived  the  new  strength  which  the  doctrine  that  the  sea  be- 
longed to  everybody  and  to  no  one,  and  that  it  was  the  right  of  neu- 
trals to  live  under  this  law,  would  have  in  drawing  these  countries 
together."^  The  author  whom  we  have  just  quoted  shows  how  the 
injury  to  her  interests  finally  prevailed  with  Catherine  II  over  the 
temptations  with  which  Great  Britain  was  luring  her  Court  to  bring 
her  over  to  its  side  and  how  Count  Panin,  the  Empress's  Chancellor, 
seized  this  occasion  to  attach  his  sovereign  to  the  doctrine  of  France. 
"Catherine  II,"  he  writes,  "addressed  to  the  belligerent  Courts  of 
Europe  the  declaration,  for  which  Panin,  the  Prime  Minister,  has, 
not  without  reason,  received  the  praise  of  history,  but  it  is  proper  to 
mention  the  fact  that  M.  de  Vergennes  and  the  Government  of  Louis 
XVI  had  laid  down  the  doctrine  and  practically  dictated  its  terms. "- 

Without  attempting  to  write  the  history  of  the  armed  neutrality,  let 
us  recall  certain  facts  in  connection  with  it.^ 

The  merchant  marine  of  Russia  was  undeveloped  and  the  business 
of  its  northern  provinces  was  practically  in  the  hands  of  the  English. 


^Henri  Doniol,  Histoire  de  la  participation  de  la  France  a  I'etahlissenicnt  des 
Etats-Unis  d'Amerique. — Correspondance  diplomatique  et  documents  (1888), 
vol.  3,  p.  702. 

^Ibid.,  vol.  4,  p.  436. 

3The  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  9  (1906),  ch.  2,  "The  Armed  Neutral- 
ity" by  T.  A.  Walker  and  H.  W.  Wilson. 


NYS  175 

In  1778  the  United  States  endeavored  to  destroy  this  source  of  wealth 
of  its  enemy,  and  in  the  summer  of  that  year  there  appeared  in  the 
northern  seas  an  American  privateer,  which  inflicted  severe  damage 
upon  the  vessels  that  frequented  the  port  of  Archangel.  In  the  month 
of  August  the  Russian  Government,  seeking  a  way  to  put  an  end  to 
these  abuses,  entered  into  negotiations  with  Denmark.  The  problem 
confronting  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg  was  to  protect  the  merchant 
marine  of  one  of  the  belligerent  States,  and  it  proposed  that  its  coasts 
should  be  patrolled  by  a  fleet  to  be  furnished  by  Denmark  and  Russia. 
Denmark,  who  had  profited  by  the  transportation  business  of  France 
and  who  desired  recognition  of  the  protective  maxims  of  neutrality, 
took  a  different  view  of  the  matter.  Sweden,  whose  interests  were 
identical  with  those  of  Denmark,  took  part  in  the  negotiations. 

No  immediate  result  was  obtained,  but  toward  the  end  of  1779  new 
developments  brought  about  further  negotiations  between  the  Courts 
of  St.  Petersburg  and  Copenhagen.  A  Spanish  cruiser  seized  off 
Gibraltar,  which  was  blockaded  by  the  Spaniards,  the  Dutch  vessel 
Concordia,  which  a  merchant  of  Archangel,  on  half  shares  with  a 
Dutch  merchant,  had  loaded  with  grain,  and  the  Prize  Court  at  Cadiz 
had  confirmed  the  prize.  Russia  protested.  The  Spanish  royal  order 
of  July  10,  1777,  simply  required  the  searching  of  neutral  vessels  that 
passed  Gibraltar  and  authorized  the  capture  only  of  vessels  which 
violated  the  blockade.  The  Court  of  St.  Petersburg  therefore  de- 
manded reparation  for  the  act  and  the  withdrawal  by  Spain  of  the 
ordinance  it  had  published  concerning  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar.  A 
rescript  to  this  effect  was  sent  on  January  19,  1780,  to  the  Russian 
Envoy  at  Madrid,  and,  since  four  vessels  belonging  to  a  Russian  mer- 
chant had  just  sailed  from  Russia,  with  a  Russian  cargo,  bound  for 
Marseilles,  the  Government  requested  that  they  should  be  protected. 
At  that  very  moment  St.  Petersburg  learned  that  another  Russian 
ship,  the  St.  Nicholas,  had  met  with  the  same  fate  as  the  Concordia. 
[t  was  laden  with  wheat  for  Malaga  and  Leghorn  and  had  been  seized 
and  taken  to  Cadiz. 

It  was  then  that  the  Empress  of  Russia  decided  upon  further  diplo- 
matic action.  She  determined  to  persuade  Denmark  and  Sweden  to 
back  up  her  efforts,  to  invite  the  United  Provinces  and  Portugal  to 
adhere  to  a  common  polic}-  with  them,  and,  finally,  to  draw  up  a 
declaration  on  the  principles  of  the  freedom  of  neutral  commerce, 
which  should  be  submitted  to  the  belligerents. 


176  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  policy  of  the  French  Government  tri- 
Uimphed;  and  the  adoption  of  the  program  drawn  up  by  Catherine  II 
was  to  result  in  the  complete  isolation  of  Great  Britain. 

The  Russian  Government's  declaration  was  dated  February  17 j 
March  9,  1780.  It  sets  forth  the  principles  which  are  "coincident  with 
the  primitive  right  of  nations  which  every  people  may  reclaim,  and 
which  the  belligerent  Powers  can  not  invalidate  without  violating  the 
laws  of  neutrality,  and  v/ithout  disavowing  the  maxims  they  have 
adopted  in  the  different  treaties  and  public  engagements." 

According  to  the  declaration,  the  principles  may  be  reduced  to  the 
follovk'ing  points; 

(1)  That  neutral  ships  may  freely  sail  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war  are 
free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband. 

(3)  That  the  Russian  Government,  in  the  matter  of  determining 
what  constitutes  contraband,  holds  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of 
June  20,  1766,  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain,  which  provisions  it 
extends  to  all  the  Powers  at  war.  With  the  exception  of  saltpeter, 
sulphur,  saddles  and  bridles,  the  articles  of  contraband  enumerated  in 
the  treaty  were  specially  designed  for  use  in  war.  It  was  stipulated 
that  when  a  neutral  ship  carried  such  articles,  the  quantity  of  muni- 
tions required  for  its  own  needs  would  be  exempt  from  seizure. 

(4)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  none 
shall  be  considered  such  except  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has 
stationed  its  war-ships  sufficiently  near  to  make  access  thereto  clearly 
dangerous. 

(5)  That  these  principles  shall  constitute  the  rule  in  proceedings 
and  judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

This  declaration  was  communicated  on  February  28/March  10, 
1780,  to  the  representatives  of  the  neutral  States  accredited  to  the 
Court  of  St.  Petersburg,  and  the  envoys  of  Denmark,  Sweden,  the 
United  Provinces,  and  Portugal  gave  the  Russian  Government  the 
most   friendly  as-urances. 

To  crown  this  declaration  with  success,  armed  neutrality  had  to 
follow.  This  had  been  foreseen,  and  on  February  27  instructions 
had  been  forwarded  at  the  same  time  as  the  declaration  to  the  Rus- 
sian Ministers  accredited  to  foreign  Governments.  These  instructions 
laid  stress  upon  the  necessitv  for  a  vast  league,  which  would  employ 


NYS  177 

force,  if  there  were  need,  to  bring  about  respect  for  the  principles  set 
forth,  and  went  on  to  say  that  it  was  the  desire  of  the  Empress  to 
have  these  new  maxims  made  binding  upon  all  nations,  when  peace 
should  be  concluded.^ 

Among  the  neutral  nations,  Denmark  seemed  to  be  the  surest  and 
steadiest  support.  Sweden  was  suspected  of  too  friendly  leanings 
toward  France.  The  United  Provinces,  a  prey  to  internal  dissen- 
sions, were  playing  a  waning  part  in  European  afiFairs ;  but  the  prin- 
ciples proclaimed  by  Catherine  II  were  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
them,  because  the  Dutch  were  the  great  ocean  carriers.  The  attitude 
of  the  other  countries  was,  on  the  whole,  of  little  consequence. 

The  rescript  addressed  to  the  Russian  Envoy  at  Copenhagen  in- 
structed him  to  announce  to  the  Court  of  Denmark  that,  following 
its  example  of  the  preceding  year,  the  Russian  Government  would 
send  in  the  summer  a  fleet  to  protect  commerce  in  the  northern  seas, 
and  to  urge  that  Court  to  take  part  in  this  enterprise.  It  laid  stress 
on  the  neutralization  of  the  Baltic,  pointed  out  the  advisability  of  both 
Governments  forming  fleets,  and  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
principles  set  forth  in  the  declaration  were  borrowed  from  Danish 
diplomacy.  The  Court  of  Copenhagen  was  invited  to  adhere  by  a 
formal  treaty,  to  be  drawn  up  in  such  terms  as  to  permit  otlier  States 
to  subscribe  to  it ;  separate  articles  were  to  settle  the  points  which 
concerned  only  the  two  countries,  and  the  Danish  Government  was 
not  only  to  address  to  its  Ministers  at  Paris,  London,  and  Madrid  a 
note  in  accordance  with  the  Russian  declaration,  but  also  to  take 
steps  with  a  view  to  obtaining  the  support  of  Sweden,  Portugal,  and 
the  United  Provinces.  Similar  instructions  were  given  to  the  Russian 
Envoy  at  Stockholm. 

The  Russian  Ambassadors  at  London  and  at  Madrid  received  com- 
munications, in  which  the  step  taken  by  the  Empress  was  described 
as  "impartial  and  based  upon  the  natural  law."  The  Court  of  St. 
Petersburg  considered  the  Americans  as  rebels ;  it  had  no  interest  in 
them  whatever. 

The  declaration  was  ofificially  communicated  to  the  envoys  of  the 
belligerents  at  St.  Petersburg.  The  representative  of  France  replied 
that  the  principles  of  the  Empress  were  in  accord  with  the  intentions 
of  his   Government.     The  Minister  of   Spain   confirmed  the   promise 


^F.  de  Martens,  Rectieil  des  traifes  ct  conventions  conclus  par  la  Russie  avec 
les  puissances  etrangcres,  vol.  2,  p.  120. 


178  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

made  by  his  country  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  Russia  with  regard  to 
the  injuries  suffered  by  its  subjects.  The  reply  of  the  English  Min- 
ister stated  that  lawful  neutral  commerce  would  be  respected  by  Great 
Britain,  and  shortly  after,  in  a  note  handed  to  the  Chancellor,  the 
representative  of  Great  Britain  gave  assurance  that  his  Government 
was  conducting  itself  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
!iations  and  the  stipulations  of  treaties.  The  note  asserted  that  wher- 
ever there  had  been  a  question  as  to  the  nature  of  the  cargo  Great 
Britain  had  indemnified  the  owners. 

The  Cabinets  of  the  belligerent  countries  likewise  replied. 

The  Court  of  London  invoked  the  law  of  nations,  and  set  up  against 
the  declaration  the  system  which  it  was  following.  The  despatch 
was  in  very  general  terms. 

France  declared  itself  to  be  in  accord  with  Russia.  "In  the  same 
degree,"  says  a  writer,  "in  which  the  Russian  declaration  of  March  9 
had  received  but  a  cool  welcome  in  England,  in  France  the  principles 
which  it  laid  down  were  warmly  applauded.  When  it  reached  Ver- 
sailles, there  was  an  outburst  of  joy."^ 

The  Spanish  note  stated  that  the  measures  of  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment, against  which  Russia  had  taken  exception,  were  the  result  of 
Great  Britain's  attitude.  The  Court  of  Spain  rallied  to  the  support 
of  the  views  held  by  the  Empress,  the  application  of  which  that  Court 
itself  had  demanded,  and  it  was  its  intention  to  respect  them. 

The  negotiations  with  Denmark  were  not  long  in  producing  results. 
Bernstorff  had  at  the  start  interposed  certain  objections,  the  safest 
way,  in  his  opinion,  being  the  conclusion  of  a  Russo-Danish  alliance. 
Nevertheless  an  agreement  was  reached. 

On  July  8  Denmark  made  a  declaration  similar  to  the  Russian 
declaration,  and  on  July  9,  1780,  there  was  signed  at  Copenhagen  a 
maritime  convention  for  the  maintenance  of  the  principles  proclaimed 
in  the  double  declaration.  The  two  States  agreed  to  equip  a  certain 
number  of  war-ships,  which  were  to  act  in  concert,  in  case  of  need, 
for  the  protection  of  the  commerce  of  the  contracting  Parties.  It  was 
decided  that,  if  either  or  both  of  the  signatories  were  disturbed  or 
molested  as  a  result  of  the  convention,  the  two  Governments  should 
make  common  cause.  Separate  articles  proclaimed  the  neutrality  of 
the  Baltic  and  the  desire  of  restoring  peace  between  the  belligerents, 

ip.  Fauchille,  La  diplomatic  francaise  ct  la  ligiie  dcs  neutres  de  1780  {1776- 
1783),  1893,  p.  375. 


NYS  179 

It  was  stipulated  that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  the  end  that  the 
system  of  neutrality  might  serve  as  the  basis  for  a  universal  code,  in 
which  should  be  laid  down  the  rules  to  be  followed  by  all  peoples  in 
time  of  naval  warfare. 

On  July  21  Sweden  made  a  declaration  similar  to  the  declarations 
of  Russia  and  Denmark,  and  on  the  same  day  a  convention  was 
signed  at  St.  Petersburg  between  Russia  and  Sweden.  It  determined, 
in  addition,  the  nature  of  contraband  of  war,  and  secret  articles  con- 
tained the  stipulation  with  regard  to  the  Baltic. 

Denmark  acceded  to  this  convention  as  a  principal  party.  On  July 
9  Sweden  likewise  gave  its  assent  to  the  convention.  The  Court  of 
Russia  addressed  a  note  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  informing  them 
of  the  double  accession. 

On  November  30,  1780,  the  States  General  of  the  United  Provinces 
sent  their  adhesion  to  the  league,  but  the  resolution  had  not  been  ap- 
proved by  all  the  Provinces  and,  when  the  convention  was  on  the 
point  of  being  signed,  the  country  was  drawn  into  the  war  against 
Great  Britain.  The  United  Provinces  called  upon  the  northern 
Powers  to  come  to  their  aid,  as  stipulated  in  the  armed  neutrality 
agreement;  but,  as  the  rupture  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
Provinces  had  taken  place  before  the  accession  of  the  United  Provin- 
ces and  as  the  result  of  causes  foraign  to  the  objects  of  the  neutrahty 
alliance,  their  appeal  was  refused. 

On  May  8,  1781,  Prussia  guaranteed  the  system  of  neutrality.  Aus- 
tria was,  in  turn,  invited  to  adhere.  Joseph  II  and  Count  von  Kaunitz 
considered  the  formality  as  superfluous  and  ill-timed.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  they  were  displeased  because  the  Empress  had  addressed  the 
King  of  Prussia  first.  The  Emperor's  interest  to  maintain  the  Rus- 
sian alliance  dictated  his  conduct.  Pie  adhered,  not  by  a  formal 
treaty,  but  by  an  exchange  of  acts  signed  by  the  two  Sovereigns,  the 
one,  an  act  of  accession,  the  other,  an  act  of  acceptance.  The  ex- 
change of  these  four  documents  took  place  on  October  19,  1781.^ 
Portugal  acceded  by  the  treaty  of  St.  Petersburg,  dated  July  13, 
1782;  the  Kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies  by  the  convention  of  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1783. 

France  had  replied  on  July  27,  1780,  that  the  Russo-Danish  meas- 
ure was  "the  greatest  benefit  that  the  present  war  has  been  able  to 


^October  30,  1781,  new  style.    See  post,  pp.  403-409. 


180  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

bring  about  for  Europe."  The  reply  of  Spain  is  not  known.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had  not  received  an 
official  communication ;  but,  on  the  advice  of  Vergennes,  it  gave  its 
support  to  the  principles  proclaimed  and  declared  that  its  Ministers 
to  foreign  countries  should  be  authorized  to  accede,  if  they  were 
asked  to.^  Great  Britain  made  protestations  of  friendship,  and  in 
view  of  the  turn  aifairs  had  taken  it  recommended  its  cruisers  and 
privateers  to  act  with  discrimination. 

The  peace  of  Versailles  of  1783  again  put  into  effect  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  treaties  of  commerce  signed  at  Utrecht  in  1713.  The 
maritime  and  commercial  convention  concluded  between  Great  Britain 
and  France  renewed  the  same  provisions.  Taken  in  connection  with 
the  league  of  neutrals,  this  was  a  significant  fact,  but  it  should  be 
remarked  that  the  treaty  concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  Provinces  contained  no  similar  stipulation,  so  that  the  former 
of  these  two  countries  was  in  a  position  to  consider  the  maxims  favor- 
ing neutrals  as  exceptional  in  common  law. 

While  asserting  the  freedom  from  seizure  of  vessels  under  a  neutral 
flag,  as  well  as  their  enemy  cargo,  with  the  exception  of  contraband 
of  war,  the  armed  neutrality  league  of  1780  and  the  treaties  which 
followed  it  were  silent  as  to  the  status  of  neutral  goods  under  an 
enemy  flag.  This  omission  was  intentional ;  the  northern  Powers 
feared  lest  they  might  appear  to  be  demanding  too  much.  However, 
it  is  none  the  less  true  that,  all  things  considered,  the  league  pro- 
duced practical  results.  It  had  boldly  brought  to  the  fore  the  ques- 
tion of  reforming  international  maritime  law,  and  it  is  no  exaggera- 
tion to  regard  it  as  the  line  of  demarcation  between  two  distinct 
epochs  in  the  development  of  the  law  of  nations.^  The  effect  was 
particularly  conspicuous  in  the  field  of  science,  where  the  movement 
favoring  neutrals  has  become  much  more  marked  since  the  declara- 
tion. 

VII 

During  the  wars  of  the  Revolution  and  of  the  Empire  belligerents 
disregarded  at  will  the  rights  of  neutrals.  In  1793  Great  Britain, 
Prussia,  and  Russia  made  common  cause  in  prohibiting  the  transpor- 
tation of  wheat  and  provisions  to  France,  and  France  authorized  its 


iR.   Doniol,   Histflirr   de   la   participation    de   la  France   a    I'etablissement   des 
Etats-Unis.  vol.  4,  p.  437. 

2L.  Gessner,  Les  droits  des  neutres  sur  nicr,  2d  ed.,  1875,  Preface,  p.  vi. 


NYS  181 

sailors  to  seize  neutral  vessels  laden  with  food  for  the  enemy  or 
enemy  goods. ^  Great  Britain  and  France  soon  took  still  harsher 
measures.  The  Orders  in  Council  and  the  decisions  of  the  admiralty 
judges  of  Great  Britain  went  so  far  as  to  deny  to  neutrals  the  right 
to  carry  any  products  other  than  those  of  their  own  country;  the  laws 
of  France  and  the  judgments  of  its  prize  courts  declared  lawful  prize 
vessels  loaded  wholly  or  partially  with  goods  emanating  from  Great 
Britain  or  its  possessions,  no  matter  who  was  the  owner  of  the  goods, 
and  the  decree  of  August  29,  1798,  even  provided  that  any  neutral 
subject  found  in  the  crew  of  an  enemy  war  or  merchant  ship  would 
be  treated  as  a  pirate. - 

This  was  a  blow  to  Denmark  and  Sweden  especially.  These  two 
countries  agreed  to  convoy  their  merchant  ships.  Great  Britain 
claimed  the  right  to  search  vessels  sailing  under  convoy.  It  was  then 
that  Paul  I  of  Russia,  who  had  withdrawn  from  his  alliances  with 
Austria  and  Great  Britain,  issued  his  declaration  of  x\ugust  15/27, 
1800,  inviting  Sweden,  Prussia,  and  Denmark  to  conclude  a  conven- 
tion for  the  reestablishment  of  the  rights  of  neutrality.  On  Decem- 
ber 16  two  treaties  were  concluded  at  St.  Petersburg,  one  between 
Russia  and  Sweden,  and  the  other  between  Russia  and  Denmark.  On 
the  18th  a  treaty  was  concluded  between  Russia  and  Prussia.  Each 
of  the  three  Courts  acceded  to  the  conventions  of  the  other  Courts 
with  Russia,  and  the  treaties  of  1800  thus  formed  a  genuine  quad- 
ruple alliance. 

Article  3  of  the  treaties  set  forth  the  "general  principles  of  the  rights 
of  neutrals."     These  principles  were  as  follows : 

(1)  Ever}'  vessel  may  sail  freely  from  port  to  port  and  along  the 
coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  Effects  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war  are 
free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  w'th  the  exception  of  articles  of  con- 
traband. 

(3)  A  port  is  considered  to  be  blockaded  when  access  thereto  is 
clearly  dangerous  as  the  result  of  the  measures  taken  by  one  of  the 
belligerent  Powers  by  placing  its  war-ships  nearby.  Neutrals  are  not 
permitted  to  enter  the  port. 

(4)  Neutral   vessels   may    not    be   arrested    except    for   just   cause 


^C.  de  Afartens,  Nouvclles  causes  celcbres  du  droit  des  gens,  vol.  2,  p.   179. 
^Ch.  de  Boeck,  Dc  la  propriete  privce  enncmie  sous  pavilion  ennemi.  p.  73. 


182  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  self-evident  facts.  They  must  be  adjudicated  without  delay  and 
by  due  process  of  law. 

(5)  The  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  war-ship  or 
war-ships  accompanying  merchant  vessels  that  his  convoy  has  no  con- 
traband goods  on  board  must  suffice  and  there  is  no  occasion  to 
search  such  vessels.  The  captains  of  war-ships  shall  receive  the 
strictest  orders  to  prevent  trade  in  contraband  goods.  To  ensure  the 
execution  of  these  provisions,  the  two  Sovereigns  shall  equip  propor- 
tionate numbers  of  vessels  and  frigates. 

Articles  11  and  12  permitted  other  Powers  to  accede  to  the  con- 
vention and  provided  that  the  measures  taken  should  be  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  belligerents.  Great  Britain  retaliated  with  war, 
which  was  of  short  duration,  for  the  death  of  Paul  I  caused  a  sudden 
change  in  Russian  policy,  and  on  June  17,  1801,  the  maritime  con- 
vention of  St.  Petersburg  was  concluded  between  England  and  Rus- 
sia. 

The  rules  adopted  were  as  follows : 

(1)  The  vessels  of  neutral  Powers  may  freely  enter  the  ports  and 
sail  along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  This  freedom  does  not  apply  to  contraband  of  war. 

(3)  The  flag  does  not  cover  the  goods;  that  is  to  say,  the  freedom 
of  the  neutral  vessel  does  not  extend  to  the  enemy  property  with 
which  it  is  laden. 

(4)  Raw  materials  or  manufactured  articles  of  the  countries  at 
war  are  not  regarded  as  enemy  property  when  they  have  become  the 
property  of  subjects  of  neutral  nations. 

(5)  Contraband  goods  are  those  that  have  been  so  designated  by 
previous  treaties,  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of 
February  22,  1797.  The  two  contracting  Powers  shall  include  under 
this  head  arms,  projectiles,  powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur,  swordbelts, 
cartridge  boxes,  saddles  and  bridles.  Provisions  and  wood  for  build- 
ing are  not  considered  contraband. 

(6)  No  port  shall  be  regarded  as  blockaded  unless  the  attacking 
Power  shall  have  stationed  its  ships  sufficiently  near  to  render  access 
thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(7)  The  vessels  of  a  neutral  Power  may  not  be  arrested  except  for 
just  cause  and  self-evident  facts.  They  are  adjudicated  without  de- 
lay, and  tlie  procedure  shall  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal. 

Denmark  and   Sweden   were   forced  to  accede  to  this  convention, 


PERELS  183 

which  laid  down,  among  other  things,  the  principles  to  be  followed  in 
the  searching  of  merchant  ships.  The  former  of  these  States  did  so 
by  the  treaty  of  Moscow  of  October  23,  1801 ;  the  latter  by  the  con- 
vention of  St.  Petersburg  dated  March   18/30,   1802. 

In  this  way,  by  making  concessions,  which  were,  on  the  whole, 
rather  slight,  the  London  Cabinet  secured  recognition  of  two  princi- 
ples which  it  considered  of  great  importance,  namely,  that  the  flag 
does  not  cover  the  goods  and  that  vessels  under  convoy  may  ibe 
searched. 


PERELS :  Manuel  de  Droit  Maritime  International.  Translated 
from  the  German  and  augmented  by  some  new  documents  by 
L.  Arendt.     Paris,  1884. 

Ferdinand  Paul  Perels.  German  publicist ;  born  in  1836 ;  died  in  1903.  Legal 
adviser  to  the  admiralty,  1877,  privy  councillor,  1900,  honorary  professor  at  the 
University  of  Berlin,  doctor  of  law,  member  of  the  Institute  of  International 
Law.  Perels  devoted  himself  to  the  special  study  of  public  maritime  law,  and 
for  this  reason  was  well  fitted  to  occupy  the  high  positions  in  the  administration 
of  the  German  Navy  to  which  he  rapidly  attained.  In  1892  he  was  elected  to  the 
Reichstag  and  there  took  an  important  part  in  the  movement  to  increase  the 
German  fleet  and  in  the  administration  of  that  fleet. 

The  two  principal  publications  of  Perels  are  Das  internationale  offentliche 
Seerecht  der  Gegenwart,  1882,  second  edition,  1903,  and  Das  allgemeine  offent- 
liche Seerecht  im  Deutschen  Reiche,  1884.  He  has  also  written  numerous  mono- 
graphs bearing  on  maritime  law. 


CONVOYS 


Page  2^5,  §  S^- — I-  In  the  large  sense  of  the  word,  convoying  means 
escorting  transport  ships  by  armed  force.  Convoys  of  merchant  ves- 
sels protected  by  war  vessels  are  of  great  importance.  At  the  begin- 
ning, they  had  for  their  object  to  protect  commerce  in  case  of  piracy 
or  of  perils  in  navigation.  It  is  only  in  modern  times  that  the  use  of 
convoys  has  been  extended  lO  neutral  navigation. 

In  placing  neutral  vessels  under  convoy,  guaranty  is  thereby  given 
to  the  belligerents  that  there  is  no  war  contraband  on  board  the  con- 


184  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

voyed  vessels,  and  that  these  are  not  making  for  prohibited  zones. 
When  such  guaranty  is  met  with,  search  of  the  vessels  is  no  longer 
necessary.  This  is  the  understanding  that  was  reached  more  than 
two  centuries  ago.  Still,  it  has  never  been  universally  admitted  that 
convoyed  vessels  were  exempt  from  search ;  the  British  Government, 
especially,  has  frequently  refused  to  admit  this  privilege.^ 


iln  1779,  Danish  vessels  in  convoy  vv^ere  captured  by  English  cruisers,  because 
the  commander  of  the  convoy  had  offered  resistance  to  search.  This  fact  led  to 
a  decision  of  the  British  court  of  admiralty  in  which  it  is  declared  that  the  con- 
voy exempts  from  search  only  in  those  cases  provided  for  in  treaties.  During 
the  following  year,  the  seizure  of  the  Danish  frigate  Frcya,  which  had  also 
opposed  the  search  of  the  vessels  convoyed  by  her,  led  to  long  negotiations.  The 
British  Government  decided  officially  to  send  a  special  commissary  to  Copen- 
hagen, notifying  the  Danish  Government  at  the  same  time  that  a  fleet  would 
accompany  the  delegate,  in  order  to  give  greater  importance  to  his  representa- 
tions, and  also  to  prepare  a  way  for  such  explanations  as  might  perhaps  arise 
from  the  extreme  measures  upon  which  the  King  of  England  would  only  decide 
with  great  repugnance.  In  the  presence  of  sixteen  English  war  vessels,  anchored 
in  the  Sound,  the  Danish  Government  had  to  yield  and  to  renonnce  the  convoy  of 
merchant  vessels.  At  this  time,  a  dispute  with  Sweden  gave  the  English  admir- 
alty court  an  opportunity  to  proclaim  the  principles  which  it  followed  upon  this 
matter.  A  certain  number  of  Swedish  war  vessels  sailing  under  the  convoy  of 
the  frigate  Ulla  Fersen.  were  seized  by  English  cruisers  in  consequence  of  the 
opposition  to  search  made  by  Baron  Cederstrom  who  commanded  the  convoy. 
In  the  decision  rendered  by  the  admiralty  court  on  June  11,  1799,  it  is  declared: 

Every  belligerent  nation  is  entitled  to  search  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and 
the  agents  of  the  authority  of  the  neutral  country  who  interpose  by  force  in 
any  manner  whatever,  can  do  nothing  to  change  this  right  to  which  cruisers 
are  entitled ;  interference  on  their  part  would  resemble  an  opposition  of 
illegal  violence  to  legal  right.  If  by  special  covenant  some  Powers  have 
stipulated  that  the  presence  of  one  of  their  war-ships  should  be  regarded 
as  guaranty  that  the  merchant  vessels  have  nothing  on  board  contrary  to 
the  duties  of  good  friendship,  the  other  Governments  can  not  thereby  be 
compelled  to  renounce  their  right  of  visit  and  search. 

The  instructions  received  by  Captain  Cederstrom,  on  May  17,  1798,  were 
couched  in  quite  the  contrary  sense;  they  read  as   follows: 

In  case  the  commander  should  meet  one  or  several  war-ships,  or  a  fleet  of 
a  foreign  nation,  he  must  conduct  himself  with  all  possible  courtesy  and  not 
give  any  pretext  for  hostile  action;  but  if  he  should  meet  an  enemy  war- 
ship, desiring  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  frigate  belongs  to  the  King 
of  Sweden,  the  commander  shall  by  salute  and  by  the  hoisting  of  his  flag 
affirm  that  such  is  the  case;  if  the  enemy  vessel  should  desire  to  search  the 
convoyed  merchant  vessels,  he  must  offer  resistance  as  much  as  possible,  and 
if,  in  spite  of  the  friendly  representations  of  the  commander,  the  merchant 
vessels  were  to  be  attacked,  he  must  oppose  force  with  force. 

Captain  Cederstrcim  had  sent  out  an  armed  boat  to  take  an  English  officer  who 
was  on  one  of  the  captured  vessels  and  had  him  brought  on  board  his  frigate; 
but  in  the  presence  of  superior  English  forces,  he  had  been  compelled  to  release 
him.  He  was  recalled  to  .Sweden  for  this  act;  he  was  brought  before  a  war 
council  and  condemned  to  be  shot ;  pardoned  at  the  very  moment  when  he  was 
to  be  executed,  he  was  afterwards  confined  to  a  fortress. 


PERFXS  185 

II.  The  exercise  of  the  right  of  search  with  regard  to  convoyed 
vessels  has  been  subject  to  certain  rules  which  require  on  the  part  of 
the  chief  of  the  convoy,  the  fulfillment  of  certain  conditions  intended 
to  give  the  belligerents  the  necessary  guaranties.^ 

Thus,  the  commander  of  the  convoy,  before  starting  upon  his 
voyage,  must  assure  himself  of  the  innocent  character  of  the  cargoes 
and  of  the  destination  of  the  vessels  to  be  convoyed ;  he  must  subject 
the  papers  to  a  careful  examination  and  ascertain  that  there  is  no  war 
contraband  on  board. 

III.  When  special  regulations  or  conventions-  have  not  defined  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  search  of  the  vessels  under  convoy,  the  fol- 
lowing principles  may  be  taken  as  a  guide. 

1.  The  consideration  due  to  the  neutral  State  and  to  its  flag  de- 
mands faith  in  the  formal  declaration  of  the  officer  placed  in  charge 
of  the  convoy ;  this  consideration  would  be  offended  if  open  defiance 


^The  armed  neutrality  of  the  northern  Powers,  1800,  adopted  the  following 
rules  (Article  3)  : 

That  .the  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  vessel  or  vessels 
of  the  royal  or  imperial  navy,  which  accompanies  the  convoy  of  one  or 
more  merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  carries  no  contrahand  merchandise, 
must  be  considered  sufficient,  and  that  thereupon  there  shall  be  no  occasion 
to  visit  either  his  vessel  or  those  of  his  convoy. 

The  better  to  ensure  to  these  principles  the  respect  due  to  stipulations 
dictated  by  a  disinterested  desire  to  maintain  the  inalienable  rights  of 
neutral  nations,  and  to  give  further  proof  of  their  devotion  to  and  love 
of  justice,  the  high  contracting  Powers,  hereby  bind  themselves  most 
solemnly  to  issue  new  and  strict  orders  forbidding  their  captains,  whether 
of  ships  of  the  line  or  of  merchant  ships,  to  load,  hold,  or  conceal  on 
board  any  articles  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  present  convention,  might  be 
considered  contraband,  and  to  see,  respectively,  to  the  execution  of  the 
orders  that  they  shall  have  published  in  their  admiralties  and  wherever  else 
it  may  be  necessary,  with  a  view  to  which  the  ordinance,  which  shall 
renew  this  prohibition  under  the  severest  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the 
end  of  the  present  act,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  allegation  of  ignorance 
thereof. 

The  treaty  between  Russia  and  England  of  June  17,  1801,  regulates  this  matter 
in  detail,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  illegality  of  the  right  of  search  in 
such  case  see  its  Article  4,  post,  p.  598. 

The  Austrian  regulation  contains  very  detailed  directions  with  regard  to  the 
formation  and  conduct  of  convoys   (III,  §  117). 

2The  Prussian  prize  rules  in  their  Article  12,  merely  prescribed  that  neutral 
vessels  under  the  convoy  of  a  war-ship  shall  not  be  subjected  to  search,  and  that 
the  declaration  of  the  chief  of  the  convoy  shall  suffice,  provided  he  affirms  that 
the  papers  of  the  convoyed  vessels  are  in  proper  form,  and  that  there  is  no 
war  contraband  on  board;  the  Austrian  rules  in  this  respect  are  the  same  (III, 
1463). 


186  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

were  shown  toward  this  commander  who  is  the  representative  of  a 
friendly  Power.^ 

2.  In  principle,  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  search  shall  be  there- 
fore confined  to  receiving  from  the  commander  of  the  convoy  a  dec- 
laration upon  the  following  points : 

(a)  He  shall  affirm  that  the  vessels  in  question  belong  really  to  the 
convoy. 


iSee  Ortolan  (vol.  2,  p.  272),  who  states  the  following:  "It  being  well  known 
that  the  neutral  Governments  are  physically  unable  to  prevent  entirely  the 
fraudulent  commerce  of  their  subjects  whom  the  lure  of  gain  leads  frequently  to 
illicit  acts,  therefore  the  merchant  ships  when  sailing  alone  present  no  guaranty 
of  their  nature,  until  a  thorough  examination  of  them  has  been  made.  The  bel- 
ligerents can  only  by  themselves  carry  out  such  an  examination,  by  search  of  the 
ship's  papers,  and  of  the  cargo,  as  the  case  may  be.  But  such  search  is  unneces- 
sary if  they  receive  as  a  guaranty  the  authentic  attestation  of  the  Government  to 
whose  subjects  such  vessels  may  belong.  Now,  the  commander  of  a  war  vessel 
represents  his  Government.  When  by  himself  he  has  ascertained  that  the  ves- 
sels of  his  nation  placed  under  his  escort  are  sailing  in  due  form,  that  they  do 
not  and  that  they  must  not  violate  any  one  of  the  duties  of  neutrality,  his  testi- 
mony must  in  such  case  be  sufficient,  and  can  not  be  put  in  doubt  without  offend- 
ing the  loyalty  and  the  honor  of  such  Government.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
the  surety  which  the  belligerent  demands,  such  testimony  has  even  a  higher  value 
than  an  examination  of  the  ship's  papers  which  the  belligerent  himself  might 
make. 

"When  the  merchant  vessel  navigates  without  supervision,  the  papers  which 
are  on  its  board  to  show  its  neutrality  and  the  destination  of  its  cargo  may  be 
false,  and  the  belligerent  unable  to  convince  himself  thereof  by  evident  proof; 
on  the  contrary,  the  commander  of  a  convoy  who  is  perfectly  informed  in  ad- 
vance of  the  slightest  details  in  regard  to  the  vessels  placed  under  his  escort,  can 
be  deceived  neither  as  to  their  character  nor  their  destination." 

It  may  not  be  said  that  deceit  is  impossible.  Bluntschli  (in  regard  to  Article 
825),  states  in  reference  thereto:  "The  belligerent  Powers  must  cause  their 
rights  and  their  interests  to  be  respected.  It  may  therefore  not  be  demanded  of 
them  that,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  neutral  State,  they  should  absolutely  re- 
nounce their  right  to  search  suspected  vessels.  It  is  possible  that  the  neutral 
State  itself  may  have  been  deceived  or  that  it  may  not  have  exercised  sufficient 
care  in  the  examination  of  the  goods  taken  on  board.  It  may  also  be  possible 
that  the  belligerent  Power  and  the  neutral  State  be  not  agreed  upon  the  meaning 
to  be  given  to  the  word  contraband,  and  that  the  former  regard  as  contraband 
that  which  the  latter  may  not  believe  to  be  forbidden.  In  this  matter,  an  effort 
must  be  made  to  conciliate  differing  opinions  and  different  interests." — Geffcken 
(in  reference  to  §170  of  Heft'ter)  likewise  states:  "A  convoy  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  inviolability,  because  the  chief  of  the  convoy  may  have  been  deceived, 
and  also  because  opinions  may  differ  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  goods."— 
The  French  instruction  of  March  31,  1854,  likewise  foresees  the  possibility  of  an 
error;  Article  14  reads  as  follows:  You  shall  not  search  vessels  under  the  con- 
voy of  an  allied  or  neutral  war  vessel,  and  you  shall  confine  yourself  to  calling 
upon  the  commander  of  the  convoy  for  a  list  of  the  vessels  placed  under  his  pro- 
tection, with  the  written  declaration  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  enemy  and 
are  not  engaged  in  illicit  commerce.  If  however  you  should  have  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  the  good  faith  of  the  commander  of  the  convoy  has  been  deceived,  you 
would  in  such  case  communicate  your  suspicions  to  that  officer  who  would  alone 
proceed  to  the  search  of  the  suspected  vessels. 


PERELS  187 

(b)  He  shall  state  their  nationality  and  their  destination. 

(c)  He  shall  affirm  that  there  is  no  war  contraband  on  board. 
The  cruiser  shall  send  an  officer  on  board  the  convoying  vessel  to 

receive  such  declaration. 

It  is  not  rare  to  require,  besides,  the  word  of  honor  of  the  com- 
mander ;^  but  it  is  not  at  all  a  general  rule.^ 

3.  li  the  called-for  declaration  is  satisfactory  all  subsequent  exer- 
cise of  the  right  of  search  is  allowed  to  lapse. 

4.  The  search  and  the  possible  seizure  are  considered  as  legitimate : 

(a)  If  the  chief  of  the  convoy  refuses  to  make  the  requested  dec- 
laration. 

(b)  If  from  this  declaration  there  results  that  one  or  another  ves- 
sel does  not  belong  to  the  convoy. 

(c)  If  a  vessel  is  on  the  point  of  committing  a  violation  of  neu- 
trality. 

When  circumstances  make  search  necessary,  it  must  be  left  free  to 
the  officer  of  the  convoy  to  send  along  one  of  his  own  officers  to  be 
present  at  the  search. 

IV.  Vessels  which  by  their  private  authority  have  joined  the  con- 
voy, are  not  entitled  to  privileged  treatment ;  likewise  those  which  by 
chance  or  which  upon  their  own  responsibility  have  separated  from 
the  convoy.^ 

V.  If  the  convoying  vessel  has  committed  an  abuse,  the  belligerent 
cruisers  have  the  incontestable  right  to  undertake  rigorous  search  on 
board  all  the  merchant  vessels  of  this  flag,  without  further  paying  heed 
to  the  convoy. 

VI.  xA.ncient  practice  permitted  corsairs  to  exercise  the  right  of 
search  in  the  same  manner  as  was  done  by  the  war  vessels.     Since 


ipor  instance,  in  the  treaty  between  the  German  Confederation  of  the  North 
and  Salvador,  June  13,  1870,  Article  21. 

2De  Negrin  (§284)  erroneously  affirms  the  contrary. — The  Russian  Regulations 
of  1869  (§  103),  require  a  written  affirmation  or  a  signal. 

3As  long  as  they  place  themselves  under  the  protection  of  the  commander  of 
the  convoy,  the  captains  of  convoyed  vessels  must  obey  his  orders  especially  in 
relation  to  the  course  of  the  convoy  and  the  speed  to  be  maintained.  Communi- 
cation between  the  vessels  is  maintained  by  means  of  the  customary  signals  or  by 
special  signals  to  be  determined.  The  Queen's  Regulations,  §§  1930  et  seq.,  con- 
tain in  this  respect  detailed  prescriptions.  The  English  law  (27  and  28  Victoria, 
ch.  25,  §  46),  provides  a  fine  of  500  pounds  sterling  and  imprisonment  for  one 
year  for  any  infraction  of  the  orders  of  the  commander  of  the  convoy,  as  well 
as  for  separating,  unauthorized,  from  the  convoy.  See  also  the  Austrian  pre- 
scriptions referred  to  hereinbefore. 


188  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  beginning  of  this  century,  this  has  no  longer  been  allowed  them, 
with  reference  to  convoyed  vessels.  The  armed  neutrality  of  1800 
and  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  Rvissia  of  June  5/17,  1801, 
have  formally  abolished  this  former  right  of  the  corsairs. 

Ortolan  states^  that  there  is  no  need  in  this  matter  to  distinguish  be- 
tween war  vessels  and  corsairs ;  in  our  judgment,  he  takes  a  wrong 
view  in  this  matter,  for  the  two  kinds  of  vessels  as  we  have  elsewhere 
stated  are  of  a  different  character,  though  both  belong  to  the  naval 
forces  of  the  State.  While  the  corsair  acts  only  on  the  ground  of 
gain  to  be  obtained,  public  interest  and  the  sentiment  of  military  honor 
are  to  guide  the  commander  of  a  war  vessel.  It  seems  therefore  just 
that  States  which  have  refused  to  issue  letters  of  mark,  should  in 
particular  refuse  to  grant  to  the  corsairs  of  foreign  nations  any  right 
over  the  convoys  which  they  form. 

VII.  May  the  right  of  search,  in  all  its  rigor,  be  exercised  with  re- 
gard to  neutral  vessels  being  under  a  convoy  organized  by  a  neutral 
Government  other  than  their  own?  That  will  essentially  depend  upon 
the  relations  existing  between  this  neutral  State  and  the  belligerents. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  right,  the  privilege  of  search  can  not  be 
refused  the  belligerent,  because  the  commander  of  the  convoy  is  not 
in  position  to  furnish  the  guaranties  required  with  regard  to  the  con- 
duct of  vessels  other  than  those  of  his  own  nation.- 

VIII.  It  is  obvious  that  neutral  vessels  under  enemy  convoy  are 
absolutely  subject  to  search.  But  there  is  dispute  as  to  whether  the 
mere  fact  of  navigating  under  the  convoy  of  an  enemy  war  vessel 
exposes  the  neutral  vessel  to  being  captured  and  confiscated  legiti- 
mately.    This  question  was  discussed  at  the  beginning  of  this  century 


iVol.  2,  p.  273. 

-See  also  Ortolan,  vol.  2,  p.  275;  Gessner,  2d  ed.,  p.  326;  de  Negrin,  §284. 
Hautefeuille  {Hxstoire,  p.  449)  says:  "May  the  war  vessels  of  a  neutral  nation 
take  under  their  convoy  vessels  of  foreign,  but  neutral  nations?  They  undoubt- 
edly may  do  so."  It  is  evident  there  is  nothing  that  is  against  such  an  act;  but 
foreign  war  vessels  may  not  be  required  to  show  the  same  consideration  as  that 
which  they  show  toward  neutral  vessels  under  convoy  of  a  war  vessel  of  their 
own  nation. — The  Austrian  Regulation  (III,  No.  1451)  declares  as  follows:  "The 
merchant  vessels  of  a  belligerent  nation  with  which  the  monarchy  maintains  neu- 
tral relations,  and  the  merchant  vessels  of  other  neutral  States  may  not  be  taken 
in  convoy  by.  the  war  vessels  of  His  Majesty,  unless  they  have  received  superior 
orders  or  owing  to  special  circumstances  upon  which  an  immediate  detailed  re- 
port should  be  made.  The  merchant  vessels  of  an  ally  engaged  in  war  must,  on 
the  contrary,  in  so  far  as  convoys  are  concerned,  be  treated  the  same  as  those  of 
the  monarchy." — See  also  the  Queen's  Regulations,  §  1936,  which  make  also  a 
distinction  between  the  merchant  vessels  of  an  ally  and  those  of  a  third  neutral 
Power. 


PHILLIMORE  189 

when  in  consequence  of  a  Danish  ordinance  of  1810,  war  vessels  of 
this  country  seized,  on  their  return  trip,  numerous  American  merchant 
vessels  which  had  traveled  from  America  to  England  under  enemy 
convoy,  that  is  to  say,  under  English  convoy.  The  Danish  prize  tri- 
bunal condemned  them;  but  after  long  negotiations  the  Government 
granted  an  indemnity  to  the  Americans  whose  interests  had  been  in- 
jured ;  it  was,  however,  stipulated  that  this  fact  should  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  precedent. 

In  our  judgment,  the  fact  of  placing  itself  under  the  protection  of 
the  flag  of  a  belligerent  constitutes  on  the  part  of  the  neutral  vessel, 
an  offense  against  the  right  of  search  incontestably  belonging  to  the 
other  belligerent ;  the  exercise  of  such  right  being  rendered  thereby 
either  more  difficult  or  impossible,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  presence 
of  an  effective  violation  of  neutrality  and  not  simply  of  a  mere  pre- 
sumption. We  find  it  therefore  not  unjust  that  in  such  circumstances, 
abstraction  being  made  of  other  violations  of  neutrality  that  might 
occur  in  the  case,  a  vessel  should  be  captured  and  declared  legitimate 
prize. ^  Other  writers  think  that  the  mere  fact  of  navigating  under 
the  convoy  of  an  enemy  vessel  can  only  serve  as  basis  for  a  presump- 
tion of  violation  of  neutrality.^ 


PHILLIMORE:     Commentaries  upon  International  Law.    Third  edi- 
tion, London,  1885. 

Sir  Robert  Joseph  Phillimore.  English  publicist;  born  in  1810;  died  in  1885. 
Admitted  as  an  advocate  at  Doctors'  Commons  in  1839,  he  was  called  to  the  bar 
at  the  Middle  Temple  in  1841,  and  soon  distinguished  himself  as  counsel  before 
the  admiralty,  probate  and  divorce  courts.  In  1853  he  entered  Parliament  as  a 
member  for  Tavistock  and  held  this  position  until  1857.  He  was  successively 
appointed  judge  of  the  Cinque  Ports,  queen's  counsel,  advocate  general 
to    the   admiralty,    and    judge   of   the   court    of    arches.     When    the   powers    of 


^See  also  Oke  Manning,  p.  369;  Kaltenborn,  vol.  2,  pp.  467,  4^8;  Jacobsen, 
Seerecht,  pp.  140,  141. 

2See  Heffter,  §  171;  Ortolan,  pp.  275  et  seq.;  Gessner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  328-331. 
Wheaton  {Elements,  vol.  2,  pp.  192  et  seq.)  maintains  in  principle  the  legitimacy 
of  such  convoy,  and  concedes  only  that  in  such  case  one  may  avail  himself  of  a 
presumption  of  enemy  nationality  against  the  vessels  composing  the  convoy  and 
their  cargo. 


190  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  admiralty  court  were  transferred  to  the  High  Court  of  Justice  he  continued 
to  sit  as  judge  for  the  new  admiralty,  probate  and  divorce  division  until  1883. 

Phillimore  is  well  known  among  international  lawyers  for  his  authoritative 
four-volume  treatise,  Commentaries  upon  International  Law,  published  1854- 
1861,  third  edition  1879-1885. 


Volume  s,  page  S35-  CLXXXVI.  The  year  1780  opens  a  new 
chapter  in  the  history  of  the  intercourse  of  nations, — 

"Longa  est  injuria,  longae 
"Ambages,  sed  summa  sequar  fastigia  rerum."^ 

In  1780,  an  accident  brought  into  the  field  an  unexpected  and  remark- 
able champion  of  the  new  doctrine — a  then  semi-barbarous  Power  of 
gigantic  dimensions,  touching  at  one  extremity  the  farthest  bounds  of 
civilization,  but  gradually  developing  at  the  other  extremity  forces  and 
resources  in  the  European  hemisphere  which  made  her  opinion  weigh 
heavily  in  the  scale  into  which  it  was  thrown.  The  vast  Empire  of 
Russia  was  governed  at  this  time  by  Catherine  IL  Under  her  auspices 
arose  the  first  of  the  associations  known  in  history  by  the  name  of 
the  tivo  armed  neutralities. 

It  is  rather  the  province  of  the  historian  than  of  the  jurist  to  trace 
the  origin  and  lay  bare  the  causes  of  this  event.  But  it  must  be  observed 
that  the  memoir  of  Count  Goertz,^  the  diary  of  Lord  Malmesbury,  the 
records  of  De  Flassan^  and  of  Von  Dohm,'*  establish,  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  reasonable  doubt,  three  things  respecting  it.  First,  that  it 
was  the  result  of  a  cabinet  intrigue  (which  meant  nothing  less  than  the 
welfare  of  nations),  availing  itself  of  an  accident.^     Secondly,  that 


K4En.  i.  341-2. 

^Memoirc  sur  la  neutralite  armec,  p.  104. 

^Histoire  generate  et  raisonnec  de  la  diplomatie  francaise,  vol.  7,  p.  266. 

*Denkzmirdigkeiten  mcincr  Zeit,  vol.  2,  p.  100. 

^"L'lmperatrice  Marie-Therese,  s'extasiant  sur  le  rare  bonheur  de  Catherine, 
tint  au  Baron  de  Breteuil  un  discours  qui  confirme  ce  que  rapporte  le  Baron  de 
Goertz.  Tl  n'y  a  pas,'  lui  dit-elle,  a  I'occasion  de  la  neutralite  armee, 
*il  n'y  a  pas  jusqu'a  ses  vues  les  plus  mal  combinees,  qui  ne  tounient  a  son 
profit  et  a  sa  gloire ;  car  vous  savez  sans  doute  que  la  declaration  qu'elle  vient 
de  faire  pour  sa  neutralite  maritime,  avait  d'abord  ete  arretee  dans  les  termes 
les  plus  favorables  a  I'Angleterre.  Cet  ouvrage  avait  ete  fait  par  la  seule 
influence  de  M.  le  Prince  Potemkin.  et  a  I'insu  de  M.  le  Comte  de  Panin;  et 
cette  declaration,  inspiree  par  I'Angleterre,  etait  au  moment  de  paraitre,  lorsque 
M.  de  Panin,  qui  en  a  ete  instruit,  a  trouve  moyen  de  la  faire  entierement 
changer,  et  de  la  tourner  absolument  en  votre  f  aveur.' " — De  Flassan,  vol.  7, 
p.  272,  note  ( 1 ) . 


PHILLIMORE  191 

originally  the  Empress  had  fully  adopted  and  meant  to  carry  into  effect 
the  principles  of  international  law  contended  for  by  England.  Thirdly, 
that  to  the  last  she  never  clearly  understood  what  she  had  done,  or  why 
she  had  given  offense  to  Great  Britain.^  Count  Panin  was  Chancellor 
of  the  Empire ;  Prince  Potemkin  the  reigning  favorite  of  the  Empress. 
England,  in  her  war  with  her  colonies,  France,  and  Spain,  sought  aid 
in  an  alliance  with  Russia.  Potemkin  favored,  Panin  opposed  it.  The 
seizure  of  two  Russian  ships  by  Spain  at  this  time  incensed  the  Empress  : 
Potemkin  availed  himself  of  her  wrath  to  induce  her  to  order  the  equip- 
ment of  a  fleet,  destined  to  cooperate  with  England  against  Spain,  if 
redress  were  denied.  Panin  discovered  both  that  the  fleet  was  ordered, 
and  its  destination.  He  saw  in  these  facts,  however,  the  opportunity 
of  crushing  his  rival,  and  he  seized  it  with  great  adroitness.  He  ap- 
plauded the  determination  of  the  Empress,  but  artfully  suggested  that 
an  occasion  now  presented  itself  to  her  of  appearing  in  the  magnificent 
character  of  the  lawgiver  of  the  seas,  and  the  protectress  of  neutrals, 
and  at  the  same  time  of  avenging  the  injury  to  herself.  The  flattery 
was  so  specious  and  so  well  applied,  that  the  Empress  placed  herself  in 
the  hands  of  her  wily  and  successful  courtier.  Panin  drew  up  a  mani- 
festo of  neutral  rights,  and  the  Empress  communicated  it  to  France, 
Spain,  and  England. 

Seldom  has  a  more  important  event  grown  from  a  more  despicable 
origin.  It  is  not,  perhaps,  with  any  unnatural  reluctance,  that  we  hear 
in  these  days  that  Europe  acquired  for  the  first  time,  towards  the  end 
of  the  last  century,  an  acquaintance  with  the  true  doctrines  of  interna- 
tional justice  from  a  quarrel  between  the  unprincipled  courtiers  of  a 
vain,  profligate  woman,  whom  the  inscrutable  decrees  of  Providence 
had  permitted  to  be  the  absolute  sovereign  of  a  half-civilized  empire. 

CLXXXVII.  The  propositions  of  the  new  Russian  International 
Code  were  as  follows  :- 

1.  That  neutral  ships  might  freely  trade  from  port  to  port,  and  upon 
the  coasts  of  nations  at  war. 

2.  That  the  property  of  the  subjects  of  belligerent  Powers  should  be 
free  on  board  neutral  ships,  excepting  goods  that  were  contraband. 


^Professor  Wurm  (the  author  of  many  tracts  on  maritime  law)  tells  us  that 
Catherine  said  to  Lord  Malmeshury  (18th  December,  1783),  "Mais  quel  mal  vous 
fait  cette  neutralitc  armee,  ou  plutot.  nullite  armee?" — Die  Politik  der  Seemdchte, 
p.  .314.     (Hamburg.  18.S5.) 

■^Post,  p.  273. 


192  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

3.  That  with  regard  to  contraband  goods,  the  Empress  bound  her- 
self by  what  was  contained  in  the  Articles  10  and  IP  of  her  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  extending  these  obligations  to  all  belligerent 
Powers. 

4.  That  to  determine  what  characterizes  a  blockaded  port,  this  term 
shall  be  confined  to  places  where  there  is  an  evident  danger  in  entering, 
from  the  arrangements  of  the  Power  which  is  attacking,  with  vessels 
stationary  and  sufficiently  close. 

5.  That  these  principles  shall  serve  for  a  rule  in  the  proceedings  and 
judgments  on  the  legality  of  prizes. 

CLXXXVIII.  France,  Spain,  Holland,  Denmark,  Sweden,  the  two 
latter  in  direct  violation  of  the  faith  of  treaties,  gave  in  their  adherence 
to  Russia.  At  a  later  period,  Prussia  and  the  Emperor  of  Germany 
joined  the  league.  Still  later,  Portugal  and  the  Two  Sicilies  acceded 
to  the  Russian  confederacy. 

CLXXXIX.  As  to  France,  we  have  seen  what  were  the  provisions 
of  her  treaty  seven  months  before  she  joined  the  Russian  league. 

As  to  Spain,  in  the  year  1780,  one  month  before  her  accession,  she 
had  issued  the  severest  ordinances  against  neutrals,  ordering  the  seizure 
of  vessels  which  carried  enemies'  goods  or  provisions. - 

To  Denmark  and  Sweden,  Great  Britain  replied  by  a  vain  appeal  to 
the  faith  of  treaties.  Yet  how  did  the  matter  stand  between  England 
and  Denmark?^ 

In  1670,  a  solemn  treaty  of  commerce  was  concluded  between  En- 
gland and  Denmark,  the  third  article  of  which  contained  the  definition 
of  contraband ;  but  in  which,  however,  the  words,  "other  necessaries  for 
the  use  of  war,"  were  thought  too  indefinite.  To  remedy  this,  a  con- 
vention was  made  to  put  the  matter  out  of  doubt,  by  an  article  to  be 
substituted  in  the  place  of  the  other ;  by  which  contraband  was  declared 
to  include  the  very  subjects  so  often  disputed, — ship-timber,  tar,  pitch, 
rosin,  sheet-copper,  hemp,  sails,  and  cordage.  This  was  signed  on  the 
4th  July,   1780.     On  the  8th  was  signed  that  declaration  of  armed 


^L'Article  XI  dii  Traite  de  1766  designe  les  seuls  objets  suivans  comme 
etant  de  contrehande:  'Les  canons,  mortiers,  armes  a  fevi,  pistolets,  bombes, 
grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres  a  feu,  meches,  poudre,  salpetre,  soufre, 
cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceinturons,  poches  a  cartouches,  selles  et  brides,  au- 
dela  dp  ce  qui  est  necessaire  pour  la  provision  du  vaisseau.* " — De  Flassan,  vol. 
7,  p.  273  (note  1). 

^Martens,  Recucil,  vol.  4.  p.  268.    Ward,  p.  163. 

^Ward,  p.  155,  whose  concise  and  clear  statement  I  have  transplanted  into  my 
text. 


PHILLIMORE  193 

neutrality,  which  had  long  been  concerting  between  its  original  mem- 
bers, and  in  which  the  King  of  Denmark  declares  that  he  understands 
nothing  under  contraband,  except  the  articles  specified  in  the  third 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1670. 

CKC.  To  Russia,  Great  Britain  made  answer  as  to  the  general  law, 
that  "His  Majesty  hath  acted  towards  friendly  and  neutral  Powers 
according  to  their  own  procedure  respecting  Great  Britain,  and  con- 
formably to  the  clearest  principles  generally  acknowledged  as  the  law 
of  nations,  being  the  only  law  between  Powers  where  no  treaties  subsist, 
and  agreeably  to  the  tenor  of  his  different  engagements  with  other 
Powers,  whose  engagements  have  altered  this  primitive  law,  by  mutual 
stipulations  proportioned  to  the  will  and  convenience  of  the  contracting 
Parties."  She  added,  "that  precise  orders  had  been  given  respecting 
the  flag  and  commerce  of  Russia,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations  and 
the  tenor  of  our  treaty  of  commerce ;  that  it  was  to  be  presumed  that  no 
irregularity  would  happen,  but  that  otherwise  redress  would  be  afforded 
by  our  courts  of  admiralty,  judging  according  to  the  laws  of  nations, 
in  so  equitable  a  manner,  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty  shall  be  perfectly 
satisfied,  and  acknowledge  a  like  spirit  of  justice  which  she  herself 
possesses."^ 

CXCI.  But  the  most  remarkable  fact  connected  with  the  armed  neu- 
trality of  1780  remains  to  be  stated,  namely,  that  every  one  of  the 
Powers  composing  this  hallowed  league  for  the  maintenance  of  inter- 
national justice  upon  the  principles  of  the  Russian  edict,  departed  from 
the  obligation  which  they  had  contracted  as  neutrals  as  soon  as  they 
became  belligerents,  and  returned  without  shame  or  hesitation  to  the 
practice  of  the  ancient  law. 

In  the  meantime  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  though  this  Russian 
convention  professed  to  contain  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  uni- 
versal justice,  it  took  care  to  provide  that  its  stipulations  should  be 
binding  only  during  the  present  war;  it  held  out,  indeed,  the  prospect 
of  future  arrangements  in  time  of  peace,  and  Sweden  was  particularly 
anxious  to  propose  a  congress  in  which  the  question  should  be  finally 
settled.    We  shall  see  what  course  she  pursued  a  few  years  afterwards. 

CXCII.  The  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  the  Russian  league 
was  not  arranged  when  the  war  was  ended.  But  the  treaty  of  Ver- 
sailles, 1783.  between  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Spain,  confirmed  the 

^Post,  p.  282. 


194  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

treaty  of    Utrecht,   and  therefore   between  these  contracting   Powers 
established  the  principle  of  "free  ships  free  goods." 

The  treaty  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States  of  North  America, 
1785,  stipulates  that  enemies'  goods  shall  be  free  on  board  friends'  ships, 
but  not  that  friends'  goods  shall  be  seizable  on  board  enemies'  ships. ^ 
France  and  Holland  renewed  in  1785  the  articles  of  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht,-  which  stipulated  that  free  sliips  make  free  goods,  and  enemies' 
ships  enemies'  goods.  In  the  same  year,  Austria  and  Russia^  renewed 
the  provisions  of  the  armed  neutrality  on  this  subject. 

In  the  great  commercial  treaty  of  26th  September,  1786,  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Eden,  under  the  auspices  of  Mr.  Pitt,  with  France,  Great  Britain 
engaged  that  "free  ships  should  make  free  goods,  and  enemies'  ships 
enemies'  goods."* 

In  the  debate  which  took  place  in  Parliament  upon  the  preliminaries 
of  this  treaty,  it  was  objected  that  they  contained  a  recognition  by  Great 
Britain  of  the  doctrines  of  the  armed  neutrality.  To  this  it  was  an- 
swered that  the  provisions  of  this  treaty  were  only  intended  to  apply 
to  a  case,  in  itself  improbable,  that  either  of  the  contracting  parties 
should  be  engaged  in  a  maritime  war,  whilst  the  other  should  remain 
neutral,  and  that  these  provisions  were  not  intended  to  furnish  a  general 
rule  to  be  observed  towards  other  nations.^ 

This  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  treaty  is  remarkable,  and  im- 
portant, and  appears  to  have  been  entirely  overlooked  by  those"  who 
have  cited  the  treaty  as  evidence  that  Great  Britain  intended  to  introduce 
the  general  principle  of  free  ships  free  goods  into  the  International 
Code  of  Maritime  Law. 

CXCIII.  The  United  States  of  North  America,  the  new  Power  which 
had  firmly  established  itself  before  the  treaty  of  Versailles  was  made 
in  1783,  and  which  carried  the  doctrine  of  international  law  into  a  new 
hemisphere,  incorporated  the  two  maxims,  free  ships  free  goods  and 
enemies'  sJiips  enemies'  goods,  into  her  treaties  with  Holland  in  1782, 
with  Sweden  in  1783,  and  with  Prussia  in  1785.^ 


^Martens,  vol.  4,  p.  42. 
^Ibid.  68. 
^Ibid.  76. 

^Articles  20,  29.     Chalmers,  vol.  1,  pp.  530-536. 

''Parliamentary  History  of  England,  vol.  26,  p.  563. — Speech  of  Lord  Lans- 
do'xme,  pracscrtim. 

^Edinburgh  Review  for  July,  1854,  p.  214 

"Elliot's  {American)  Diplomatic  Code,  vol.  1,  pp.  134-168,  334. 


PHILLIMORE  195 

CXCIV.  The  benevolent  and  philosophical  Franklin  introduced  into 
this  last-mentioned  treaty  various  stipulations,  having  for  their  object 
to  mitigate  the  necessary  horrors  of  war,  abolishing  privateering,  pro- 
tecting fishermen  and  unfortified  cities,  and  providing  for  the  good 
treatment  of  prisoners.^  The  interval  between  the  two  armed  neutrali- 
ties is  still  more  remarkable  for  the  appearance  of  two  celebrated  works 
on  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  by  two  Italian  jurists,  Galiani  and 
Lampredi.  Galiani  was,  as  he  tells  us,  ordered  to  write  his  book  as 
fast  as  possible,  to  defend  the  conduct  of  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies 
in  adhering  to  the  Russian  league.  He  published  his  work  at  Naples 
in  1782.^  In  1788,  Lampredi  published  his  work  at  Florence.^  He 
expressed  his  conclusions,  founded  upon  very  learned  premises,  that 
there  was  no  comparison  between  the  relative  importance  of  the  rights 
of  the  belligerent  and  of  the  neutral,  assuming  them  to  be  in  collision 
upon  the  question  of  enemies'  goods  on  board  neutral  ships.  For  what, 
after  all  (he  says),  is  the  injury  sustained  by  the  neutral  from  the 
capture  of  his  vessel  laden  with  enemies'  goods,  if  his  vessel  be  restored, 
and  he,  as  the  treaties  and  usage  of  nations  require,  be  paid  his  freight  ? 
Merely  the  delay  and  the  possible  loss  of  a  return  voyage.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  right  of  the  belligerent  be  foregone,  the  fatal  consequence 
may  ensue  that  the  entire  commerce  of  the  enemy  may  be  carried  on 
under  the  neutral  flag,  and  thus  escape  from  capture,  to  the  great  in- 
jury of  the  belligerent,  the  main  object  of  whose  maritime  warfare  is 
to  destroy  the  commercial  resources  and  revenues  of  his  enemy,  the 
sinews  of  his  naval  power. 

CXCV.  It  has  been  said  that  all  the  members  of  the  armed  neutrality 
abandoned,  upon  the  very  next  opportunity  of  their  becoming  belliger- 
ents, the  creed  which  they  had  sought  to  enforce  by  arms  when  neutrals. 
The  forward  zeal  of  Sweden  in  favor  of  this  creed  has  been  noticed. 
Let  us  now,  having  careful  reference  to  dates,  look  at  the  conduct  of 
those  States. 

The  armed  neutrality  was  in  1780.  The  peace  of  Versailles  was  in 
1783.    The  next  war,  in  which  Sweden  was  a  belligerent,  happened  in 


iWheaton's  Histoire,  p.  308. 

Wei  Doz'cri  dci  Principi  ncutrali  verso  i  Principi  guerrcgianti,  e  di  questi 
verso  i  Principi  neutrali.    Napoli,  4to,   1782. 

^Dcl  Commercio    dei  Popoli  neutrali  in  tempo  di  Giicrra.    Firenze. 

He  had  previously  published  Juris  Publici  Universalis,  sive  Juris  Naturae  et 
Gentium,  Theoremata.    Liburni,  vol.  3,  1776-8. 

Mr.  Wheaton  considers  him  to  be  a  much  abler  writer  than  GaHani.  Wheat- 
on's  Histoire,  p.  310. 


196  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

1788 :  it  was  a  war  against  Russia.  Her  first  act  was  absolutely  to  re- 
nounce the  principle  of  free  ships  free  goods,  which  she  had  contended 
for  so  furiously  as  a  neutral.  "It  would  be  too  gross  an  affront"  (Mr. 
Ward  observes)  "to  her  justice  to  suppose  that  she  has  two  lines  of 
conduct, — one  as  neutral,  the  other  as  belligerent:  we  will  therefore 
rather  suppose  that  she  saw  the  errors  into  which  the  aspiring  genius 
of  Russia,  or  her  own  impulses,  heightened,  perhaps,  by  the  incidental 
injuries  inseparable  from  war,  had  betrayed  her;  and  that  she  thought, 
as  her  treaties  bade  her  think,  that  the  principle  before  us  could  only  be 
matter  of  convention,"^ 

Such  was  the  conduct  of  Sweden,  practically  affirming  that  this  sup- 
posed right  of  the  neutral  was  inconsistent  with  the  clear  right  of  the 
belligerent.  As  to  Denmark,  we  have  seen  that  in  the  year  of  the  armed 
neutrality,  1780,  she  signed  a  treaty  against  the  principle,  free  ships 
make  free  goods,  on  the  4th  of  July,  and  in  favor  of  it  on  the  8th.  By 
the  convention  of  1794,  Denmark  and  Sweden  renczved  the  renunciation 
of  the  maxim,  free  ships  make  free  goods,  which  they  had  made  in  their 
treaties,  about  one  hundred  years  before.  These  treaties  had  never  been 
abrogated,  and  by  this  convention  these  States  declared  that  they  claimed 
no  advantages  other  than  those  which  were  clearly  founded  upon  their 
respective  treaties  with  the  different  Powers  at  war.  Denmark,  more- 
over, especially  confirmed  her  ancient  treaty,  referring,  in  her  instruc- 
tions, to  her  merchants,^  to  her  treaty  of  1670  with  England,  in  which 
it  was  stipulated  that  there  should  be  a  certificate  amongst  the  ship's 
papers  to  prove  that  the  cargo  belonged  to  a  neutral  Pozver,  and  ordered 
her  magistrates  in  1793  to  deliver  such  necessary  certificates. 

But  what  did  the  author  of  the  league^  itself  do?  Why,  on  the  8th 
of  February,  1793,  Russia  herself  declared  that  her  treaty  with  France 
of  1786,  in  which  the  tzvo  principles  which  have  been  so  much  discussed 
were  contained,  was  no  longer  obligatory  until  the  restoration  of  order 
in  France.*  She  went  much  farther,  however,  and  renewed  in  the  same 
year  her  treaty  with  England  of  1766,  the  stipulations  of  which  were, 
that  neutral  commerce  should  be  carried  on  "according  to  the  principles 
and  rules  of  the  law  of  nations  generally  recognized.^ 


^Ward.  pp.  164-5. 
2Feb.  22,  1793. 
^Manning,  p.  272. 
^Martens,  vol.  5,  p.  382. 
^Ibid.  432. 


PHILLIMORE  197 

Nor  did  she  even  stop  here,  but  on  the  same  day  entered  into  another 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  by  which  the  two  Powers  engaged  to  prevent 
neutrals  "from  giving,  on  this  occasion  of  common  concern  to  every 
civilized  State,  any  protection  whatever,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  neutrality,  to  the  commerce  or  property  of  the  French 
on  the  sea  or  in  the  ports  of  France."^ 

In  the  very  same  year.  Great  Britain  concluded  treaties  containing 
articles  to  the  same  effect,  with  Spain,-  with  Russia,^  and  with  Austria.* 

France,  the  most  important  member  of  the  Russian  league,  was  not 
the  last  to  throw  overboard  the  doctrine  for  the  propagation  of  which 
it  was  established. 

On  the  9th  of  May,  1793,^  a  decree  of  the  National  Convention  de- 
clared that  enemies'  goods  on  board  neutral  vessels  were  good  prize; 
that  the  vessels  were  to  be  released  and  freight  paid  by  the  captors. 
On  the  21st  of  March,  1797,  the  Executive  Directory  issued  a  similar 
decree.® 

CXCVI.  So  much  for  the  fruits  of  the  first  armed  neutrality.  The 
soundness  of  the  principle,  and  the  faith  of  the  engagements,  were 
wafted,  with  the  first  breath  of  war,  to  those  winds  which  bore  the 
fleets  and  privateers  of  the  neutral  league,  now  become  belligerent,  to 
execute  not  the  new  but  the  ancient  maritime  international  law. 

"Atqite  idem  venti  vela  fidemque  ferunt."'^ 

CXCVII.  The  conduct  of  the  United  States  of  North  America  with 
respect  to  this  subject,  deserves  especial  notice.  This  nation  had  been 
the  cause  of  that  war  during  the  course  of  which  appeared  the  first 
armed  neutrality.  It  was  at  least  her  apparent  interest  to  sanction  the 
new  law.  Still  more  was  she  animated  to  do  so  by  her  resentment  to- 
wards Great  Britain  and  by  gratitude  to  France ;  but  her  conduct  with 
respect  to  this  matter  has  been,  under  the  most  trying  circumstances, 
marked  not  only  by  perfect  consistency,  but  by  preference  for  duty 
and  right  over  interest  and  the  expediency  of  the  moment. 

The  treaty  of  the  United  States  with  France  in  1780,  was  founded 
upon  the  stipulations  of  1778,  by  which  this  Power,  as  far  as  her  own 


iMartens,  vol.  5,  p.  440. 

^-Ihid.  Ml.  ''Ibid.  382. 

^Ibid.  485.  ""Ibid.  393. 

^Ibid.  489.  '^Ovid,  Ep.  vii. 


198  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

predilections  and  private  wishes  were  concerned,  was  at  all  times  ready 
to  abide. 

In  her  treaty  with  England  of  1795/  these  predilections  and  wishes, 
which  had  found  their  legitimate  issue  in  particular  conventions,  were 
abandoned,  and  their  place  was  taken  hy  the  ancient  general  law.  By 
the  seventeenth  article  of  this  treaty,  the  United  States  agreed  that 
enemies'  property  on  board  her  vessels  should  be  confiscated,  the  ship 
and  the  remainder  of  the  cargo  being  allowed  to  depart  without  hind- 
rance;  but  that,  on  just  suspicion,  the  vessels  themselves  might  be 
detained  and  carried  into  the  nearest  port  for  the  purpose  of  examining 
and  adjudicating  upon  them. 

CXCVIII.  It  was  of  course  perfectly  competent  to  this  Power  to 
make  these  two  different  treaties  with  different  States,  and  to  her  en- 
during honor,  she  adhered  to  both  under  circumstances  of  some  diffi- 
culty. 

In  1798,  France  promulgated^  a  new  doctrine  to  the  United  States, 
viz.,  that  as  this  Power  was  bound  to  treat  France  as  the  most  favored 
imtion,  it  was  also  bound  not  to  allow  French  property  on  board  Ameri- 
can ships  to  be  seized  by  British  cruisers,  while  they  prevented  the 
seizure  of  British  property  in  the  same  situation  by  the  French.  This 
demand  was  refused,  and  France  threatened  war  in  consequence.  It 
is  most  truly  said  by  Mr.  Ward,^  that  the  answers  of  the  United  States 
to  France  were  models  of  dignified  and  convincing  argument. 

"Before  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain"  (it  is  represented  in  one  of 
these  notes),  "the  treaty  with  France  existed.  It  follows,  then,  that  the 
rights  of  England  being  neither  diminished  nor  increased  by  compact, 
remained  perfectly  in  their  natural  state,  which  is  to  seize  enemies'  prop- 
erty wherever  found ;  and  this  is  the  received  and  allowed  practice  oi 
all  nations,  where  no  treaty  has  intervened."  A  nciv  lazv  of  nations,  it  is 
pretended,  was  introduced  by  the  armed  neutrality ;  but  who  were  the 
parties,  and  what  was  their  object?  "The  compact  was  in  its  own 
nature  confined,  with  respect  to  object  and  duration.  It  did  not  purport 
to  change,  nor  could  it  change  permanently  and  universally,  the  rights 
of  nations  not  becoming  parties  to  it.  The  desire  of  establishing  uni- 
versally the  principle,  that  neutral  bottoms  shall  make  neutral  goods,  is 
perhaps  felt  by  no  nation  on  earth  more  strongly  than  by  the  United 


^Martens,  vol.  5,  p.  672. 
nVard,  p.  167. 
3Ibid. 


PHILLIMORE  199 

States.  Perhaps  no  nation  is  more  deeply  interested  in  its  establish- 
ment ;  but  the  wish  to  establish  a  principle  is  essentially  different  from  a 
determination  that  it  is  already  established.  The  interests  of  the  United 
States  could  not  fail  to  produce  the  wish;  their  duty  forbids  them  to 
indulge  it,  when  decided  on  a  mere  right."^ 

"The  complaints  of  the  French,"  said  another  note  of  the  American 
Minister  to  his  President,^  "had  reference,  amongst  other  things,  to  the 
abandonment  by  the  Americans  of  their  neutral  rights,  in  not  maintain- 
ing the  pretended  principles  of  the  modern  lazv  of  nations,  that  free  ships 
make  free  goods ;  and  that  timber  and  naval  stores  are  not  contraband 
of  zuar. 

"The  necessity,  however,  for  the  strong  and  express  stipulations  of 
the  armed  neutrality  itself  by  all  the  various  Powers  which  joined  it, 
showed"  (as  the  note  went  on  to  state)  ''that  those  maxims  were  not  in 
themselves  law,  but  merely  the  stipulations  of  compact;  that,  by  the 
real  law,  belligerents  had  a  right  to  seize  the  property  of  enemies  on 
board  the  ships  of  friends ;  that  treaties  alone  could  oblige  them  to  re- 
nounce it ;  and  that  America,  therefore,  could  not  be  accused  of  par- 
tiality to  Great  Britain,  because  she  did  not  compel  her  to  renounce  it."^ 

CXCIX.  In  the  year  1795,  the  United  States  made  a  treaty  with 
Spain,  including  a  stipulation  the  reverse  of  that  contained  in  their 
treaty  with  England  in  the  same  year.  In  the  Spanish  treaty  it  is 
stipulated,  that  cargoes  in  neutral  ships  shall  be  free,  no  distinction  being 
made  as  to  who  are  the  proprietors  of  the  merchandises.* 

In  1799,  the  United  States  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Prussia,  by  the 
12th  article  of  which  they  declared,  that  as  experience  showed  that  the 
maxim,  free  ships  make  free  goods,  had  not  been  respected  in  any  of 
the  wars  since  1785,  Prussia  and  the  United  States  should,  in  a  future 
time  of  peace,  either  separately  between  themselves,  or  jointly  with  other 
Powers,  concert  measures  for  the  future  condition  of  neutral  commerce 
in  time  of  war;  meanwhile  these  two  Powers  agree  that  their  ships  shall 
conduct  themselves  as  favorably  towards  the  merchant  vessels  of  the 
neutrals  as  the  course  of  the  war  then  existing  might  permit,  observing 
the  general  rules  of  international  law.^ 


iWard,  p.  168,  citing  Collection  of  Acts,  198,  etc. 
-Mr.  Pincknev  to  General  Washington. 
^State  Papers,  vol.  5,  pp.  281,  286. 
^Article  15.     Afartens.  vol.  6,  p.  154. 
-'Ibid.  676. 


200  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

But  in  the  next  year,  1800,  the  old  French  doctrine  of  free  ships 
free  goods,  enemy's  ships  enemy's  goods,  was  incorporated  into  a  treaty 
between  France  and  the  United  States.^ 

During  the  war  which  commenced  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  in  1812,  the  Prize  Court  of  the  former  uniformly  enforced 
the  generally  acknowledged  rule  of  international  law,  that  enemies' 
goods  in  neutral  vessels  are  liable  to  capture  and  confiscation,  except 
as  to  such  Powers  with  whom  the  American  Government  had  stipu- 
lated, by  subsisting  treaties,  the  contrary  rule,  that  free  ships  should 
make  free  goods. - 

CC.  In  the  treaty  of  commerce  of  1797,  between  Russia  and  En- 
gland, the  article  which  relates  to  neutral  commerce^  is  silent  on  the 
question,  and  therefore  the  old  law  remained  unchanged. 

In  the  next  year  (1798),  Russia  entered  into  a  treaty  with  Portugal, 
in  which  it  was  stipulated,  that  free  ships  shall  make  free  goods,  but 
also  that  neutral  goods  in  an  enemy's  sliip  should  be  confiscated.* 

CGI.  The  first  armed  neutrality^  took  its  rise,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
the  ignoble  rivalship  of  contending  courtiers  and  the  vanity  of  a  dis- 
solute Empress  of  Russia.  The  second  armed  neutrality  had  not  a 
more  distinguished  origin ;  it  was  the  offspring  of  a  mad  Emperor  of 
the  same  kingdom. 
/  The  question  of  convoy  is  connected  with  the  right  of  search,  and 
the  discussion  of  it  belongs  to  a  subsequent  chapter;  but  it  should  be 
mentioned  here,  as  having  excited  some  irritation  in  the  Danish  and 
Swedish  Courts  against  England ;  this,  however,  had  been  allayed  by 
the  mission  of  Lord  Whitworth,  the  English  Ambassador  to  Copen- 
hagen. 

At  this  juncture  the  Russian  Emperor  Paul  claimed,  without  a 
shadow  of  reason,^  the  island  of  Malta,  which  had  been  recently  ceded 
to  the  English.  He  had  become  Grand  Master  of  the  once  celebrated 
order  of  the  knights  in  that  island,  and  his  attachment  to  this  imaginary 
distinction  was  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  subjects  on  which  his  con- 
tinually increasing  insanity  manifested  itself.  The  refusal  of  England 
to  surrender  this  island  exasperated  Paul,  and,  with  an  open  contempt 


lArticles  14,  15.     Ibid.,  vol.  7,  p.  103. 
2Wheaton's  Elements  (Ed.  Lawrence,  1855),  p.  530. 
^Article  10.    Post,  p.  445. 
^Article  24.     Martens,  vol.  6,  p.  550. 
■'■Manning,  p.  274. 

"He  alleped  the  treaty  of   1798.  which  was  a  treaty  of  subsidy,  in  which  no 
clause  affords  a  pretext  for  the  demand. — Martens,  vol.  6,  p.  557. 


PHILLIMORE  201 

of  the  stipulations  of  an  existing  treaty,^  he  laid  an  embargo  on  all 
British  property  within  his  dominions,  and  with  a  semi-Asiatic  notion 
of  justice,  ordered  one  British  vessel  to  be  burned  because  another  had 
escaped  from  harm.- 

The  next  step  of  Russia  was  characteristic;  it  was  to  renew  the 
abandoned  armed  neutrality,  as  if  for  the  purpose  of  demonstrating 
how  little  the  league  had  ever  been  concerned  with  general  interna- 
tional justice,  and  how  obviously  it  had  always  been  intended  to  injure 
one  particular  State.  Sweden,^  Denmark,*  and  Prussia^  joined  the 
revived  confederacy,  which  contained  the  old  stipulations,  with  this 
important  addition : — 

"That  the  declaration  of  the  officers  who  shall  command  the  ship 
of  war,  or  ships  of  war,  of  the  King  or  Emperor,  which  shall  be  con- 
voying one  or  more  merchant  ships,  that  the  convoy  has  no  contraband 
goods  on  board,  shall  be  sufficient;  and  that  no  search  of  his  ship,  or 
the  other  ships  of  the  convoy,  shall  be  permitted.  And  the  better  to 
insure  respect  to  those  principles,  and  the  stipulations  founded  upon 
them,  which  their  disinterested  wishes  to  preserve  the  imprescriptible 
rights  of  neutral  nations  have  suggested,  the  high  contracting  Par- 
ties, to  prove  their  sincerity  and  justice,  will  give  the  strictest  orders 
to  their  captains,  as  well  of  their  ships  of  war  as  of  their  merchant 
ships,  to  load  no  part  of  their  ships,  or  secretly  to  have  on  board  any 
articles,  which,  by  virtue  of  the  present  Convention,  may  be  considered 
as  contraband ;  and,  for  the  more  completely  carrying  into  execution 
this  command,  they  will  respectively  take  care  to  give  directions  to 
their  courts  of  admiralty  to  publish  it,  whenever  they  shall  think  it 
necessary ;  and,  to  this  end,  the  regulation  which  shall  contain  this 
prohibition,  under  the  several  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the  end  of 
the  present  Act,  that  no  one  may  plead  ignorance." 

This  attempt  to  introduce  a  new  positive  law  upon  contraband,  hap- 
pily, like  the  rest  of  the  treaty,  abortive,  does  not  require  further  dis- 
cussion in  this  place. 

By  other  articles  of  the  treaty,  mutual  assistance  is  promised  in  case 
of  attack.*"' 

CCII.     The  second  Russian  league  was  destined  to  enjoy  even  a 


^The    12th   Article  provided  that,   in  the  event  of  the  breaking  out   of  war, 
the  goods  and  persons  of  neither  country  should  be  detained  or  confiscated. 
^Post,  p.  516. 

^Post,  p.  531.  ^Post,  p.  544. 

*Post,  p.  537.  ^Post,  p.  531. 


202  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

shorter  existence  than  the  first.  Great  Britain  began  her  war  upon  tliis 
new  confederacy  against  her  by  an  attack  upon  Denmark.  Nelson's 
immortal  victory  at  Copenhagen  was  followed  by  another  event  of 
great  importance  at  the  time,  and  which  demonstrated  in  what  personal 
feeling  the  new  league  had  originated.  There  is  no  despotism,  how- 
ever unlimited,  none,  however  absolute  and  unquestionable,  according 
to  the  positive  law  or  usage  of  the  country  over  which  it  is  exercised, 
as  not  to  find,  sooner  or  later,  some  check  in  the  necessities  and  feelings 
of  mankind.  The  tyranny  of  Domitian  and  Robespierre^  became  at 
last  unendurable  to  the  poor  as  well  as  the  rich,  and  then  ensued,  by 
violent  means,  their  death.  The  ferocious  acts  of  the  Emperor  Paul, 
and  the  well-founded  belief  that  they  sprang,  in  a  great  measure  at 
least,  from  a  disordered  brain,  brought  about  at  this  critical  period  a 
similar  result ;  not,  however,  from  the  combination  of  the  humble  and 
great,  but  from  the  aristocracy  alone.  Paul  suddenly  disappeared  from 
the  stage  on  which  he  was  acting  so  terrible  a  part.  He  was  assas- 
.sinated,  and,  as  it  is  generally,  and  certainly  not  without  good  warrant, 
believed,  in  accordance  with  the  deliberate  resolution  of  the  notables  of 
his  Court.  The  act  has  indeed  been  defended  as  a  necessary  measure 
of  self-defense,  no  other  remedy  being  supplied  for  such  an  emergency 
by  the  constitution  of  Russia.  We  are  only  concerned  in  this  work  with 
the  result,  which  was  very  remarkable.  Alexander,  the  successor  to 
Paul,  immediately  concluded  a  treaty  with  England,  which  adjusted  the 
dispute.  By  this  treaty,  in  June,  1801,  certain  concessions  were  made 
by  England  respecting  convoy,  and  it  was  stipulated  that  goods  em- 
barked in  neutral  ships  should  be  free,  except  contraband  and  the  prop- 
crt\  of  enemies.  Thus  was  the  old  rule  reestablished  between  Russia 
and  England,  and  to  this  treaty  both  Sweden  and  Denmark  acceded. - 

CCIII.  Among  the  most  remarkable  works  upon  international  juris- 
prudence which  the  crisis  of  the  second  armed  neutrality  produced, 
were  the  Letters  of  Sulpicius,  by  Lord  Grenville,  and  a  Speech,  after- 
wards published  bv  the  same  distinguished  statesman,  upon  the  treaty 
between  England  and  Russia  in  1801. 


i"Sed  periit  postquam  cerdonibus  esse  timendus  Coepcrat ;  lioc  nocuit  Lamia- 
rum  caede  madenti."     Jiiv.  Sat.  iv,  153. 

2For  the  three  treaties,  see  post,  pp.  595,  606,  and  note.  Russia  had  only  a  few 
days  before  made  a  treaty  with  Sweden,  embodying  tlie  articles  of  the  armed 
neutrality,  March,  1801  (Martens,  vol.  7,  p.  329),  so  that,  in  one  and  the  same 
week,  Russia  embodied  the  two  opposite  principles  in  her  treaties  with  the  same 
nation :  and  it  has  l)een  gravely  argued  that  the  treaties  constitute  the  interna- 
tional law  on  this  subject!     Manning,  278. 


PRADIER-FODfiRfi  203 

In  the  Letters,  Lord  Grenville — who  had  but  recently  resigned  the 
office  of  foreign  secretary,  which  he  had  filled  for  many  years — main- 
tained, with  perfect  knowledge  of  the  subject,  much  erudition,  great 
vigor  of  logic,  and  manly  eloquence,  the  ancient  doctrines  of  inter- 
national law  against  those  of  the  armed  neutrality. 

In  the  Speech,^  he  declared  that  dangerous  concessions,  with  respect 
to  the  coasting  and  colonial  trade,  to  contraband  of  war  and  blockade, 
had  been  made  by  Great  Britain.  These  subjects  remain  to  be  con- 
sidered. With  respect,  however,  to  enemy's  goods  on  board  neutral 
ships,  Lord  Grenville  admitted  that  it  was  fully  recognized  by  the 
second  section  of  the  third  article  of  the  convention,  which  implied  an 
abandonment  of  the  opposite  principle  of  free  ships  free  i^oods,  on  the 
part  of  the  northern  Powers.- 


PRADIER-FODERE:    Trait e  de  Droit  International  Public  Euro- 
peen  et  Aiiiericain.     Paris,  1S85-1906 

P.  Fradier-Fodere.  French  publicist ;  born  in  1826 ;  died  in  1904 ;  member  of 
the  Institute  of  International  Law.  His  chief  work  in  the  domain  of  interna- 
tional law  is  his  elaborate  Trait e  dc  Droit  International  Public  European  et 
Americain,  1885-1906,  8  volumes. 

Mr.  Fradier-Fodere  spent  a  number  of  years  in  South  America  and  became 
very  familiar  with  Latin-American  conditions.  His  work,  as  the  title  shows, 
considers  international  law  both  from  the  European  and  American  standpoint, 
and  is  highly  regarded  on  the  Continent  and  in  Latin  America. 

He  also  published  an  annotated  edition  of  Vattel,  1863,  a  French  translation  of 
Grotius'  Dc  jure  belli  oc  pads,  1867,  and  Cours  dc  Droit  Diplomatique,  1880. 


Volume  S,  page  i~6. — -Privateering  cast  a  sinister  light  upon  the 
maritime  rules  which  preceded  the  peace  of  Ryswick  (1697)  and  the 
treaty  of   Utrecht    (1713)  ;  the  vexations  to  which  the  English  cor- 


^The  argument  was  sound;  but  as  subsequent  treaties  upon  the  same  <5ubject 
have  been  contracted  between  England  and  Russia,  the  concessions  have  no 
present  operation  or  effect. 

-See  Fhillimore's  Commentaries  upon  International  Law,  vol.  1,  sec.  xlix. 
where  this  remarkable  speech  is  referred  to  upon  the  important  question  of  per- 
manent alterations  of  general  international  law  being  introduced  into  a  treaty. 

Mr.  Wheaton  (History,  pp.  408-20)  gives  very  copious  extracts  from  this 
speech,  and  remarks  with  truth  upon  "the  very  lame  and  inconclusive  replies 
made  by  the  other  speakers"  in  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords. — Parliamentary 
History  of  England,  vol.  36,  pp.  200-255. 


204  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

sairs  subjected  the  navigation  of  neutral  States,  especially  during  the 
last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  along  with  the  violent  conduct  of 
the  North  American  ship-owners  during  the  independence  war  of  the 
American  colonies,  led  the  most  of  the  European  States,  upon  the  ap- 
peal of  Russia  (1780),  to  unite  for  the  protection  of  maritime  com- 
merce, in  time  of  war,  "in  order  that  through  the  common  efforts  of 
all  the  neutral  maritime  Powers,  there  might  be  established,  in  behalf 
of  the  mercantile  navigation  of  the  neutral  nations,  a  natural  system 
founded  upon  justice  which  might  ser\'e  as  a  rule  to  the  centuries  to 
come."^  But  this  system  never  took  form  in  a  universal  maritime 
code,  and  what  is  more,  during  the  various  wars  which  followed,  the 
principles  upon  which  it  was  based  have  not  been  observed  by  the 
very  Powers  which  had  been  the  first  to  propose  it.  A  second  league, 
likewise  brought  about  by  Russia  in  1800,  yielded  no  greater  results, 
received  the  approval  of  fewer  States  than  that  of  1780  and  came  to 
an  end  after  a  short  time.^ 


iThe  arbitrary  proceedings,  injurious  to  the  neutrals,  led  Russia  in  1780,  to 
establish  in  behalf  of  the  navigation  and  of  the  commerce  of  the  neutrals,  a 
system  of  principles  which  has  since  been  termed  the  system  of  armed  neu- 
trality. The  belligerent  Powers  (at  that  time  they  were  France,  Spain  and 
Great  Britain)  which  should  have  refused  to  recognize  this  system,  were  to 
have  been  constrained  by  a  naval  force  of  the  neutral  nations.  The  system 
of  armed  neutrality  was  formally  notified  by  Russia  to  the  Courts  of  Ver- 
sailles, of  Madrid  and  of  London,  and  the  neutral  Powers  having  been  invited 
to  join  this  system  it  was  immediately  adopted  by  Denmark,  Sweden,  Holland, 
Prussia,  Austria,  Portugal  and  the  Two  Sicilies  which  entered  into  special  con- 
ventions with  Russia  in  regard  to  this  matter.  The  most  of  these  Powers  were 
not  satisfied  to  make  their  accession  to  this  system  known  to  the  belligerent 
Powers,  but  they  notified  the  fact  to  each  other,  and  several  of  them  made 
answer  to  that  notification  b}'  forwarding  an  act  of  acceptation,  so  that  a  con- 
ventional league  was  established  between  these  States,  a  real  defensive  alliance, 
with  the  object  of  insuring  the  rights  of  the  neutrals.  Furthermore,  the  Powers 
of  the  North  decided  in  principle  that  within  the  Baltic  Sea,  as  a  closed  sea, 
hostilities  should  not  be  permitted.  France  and  Spain  looked  with  favor  upon 
the  system  of  armed  neutrality,  but  England  declared  that  she  would  continue 
to  abide  by  the  clearest  and  most  generally  accepted  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations,  and  by  tlie  stipulations  of  her  treaties  of  commerce.  But  in  view  of  the 
energetic  attitude  of  the  neutral  Powers  which  had  manifested  a  firm  will  to 
defend  their  pretensions  in  common,  she  enjoined  upon  her  ship-owners  to 
act  less  rigorously  toward  them.  But  there  is  no  league,  however  closely 
formed,  which  does  not  end  by  disintegrating,  and  the  league  of  armed  neu- 
trality did  not  esc'ipe  this  fate  during  the  war  of  the  French  Revolution.  Russia 
herself  which  had  been  its  original  instrumentality,  abandoned  it.  Memoire  ou 
Precis  histnrique  sur  la  neutralite  armee  et  son  origine,  suivi  de  pieces  justifica- 
tivcs,  by  Count  de  Gocrtz  (Basle,  1801)  ;  Albedyhll  (baron  d'),  Nouvcau  memoire 
ou  precis  historique  sur  I'association  des  Puissances  netitres  connue  sous  Ic  nam 
de  la  neutralite  armee,  ai'ec  des  pieces  justificative s,  1798;  Castera,  Histoire  de 
Catherine  II.     In  regard  to  this  league,  its  antecedents,  the  laborious  negotia- 


PRADIER-FODERE  205 

Page  906,  Section  j.?50.--It  has  been  justly  remarked  that  armed 
neutrality  to  which  reference  is  made  so  frequently,  that  is  to  say,  the 
neutrality  protected  by  an  armed  force  organized  by  a  neutral  Power, 
solely  with  that  object  in  view,  is  not  a  special  kind  of  neutrality,  but 
merely  a  more  or  less  efficacious  manner  of  protecting  ordinary  neu- 
trality if  the  latter  stands  in  danger  of  being  violated  by  powerful  bel- 
ligerents. Furthermore,  any  neutrality  must  be  able  to  defend  its 
rights,  and,  in  this  sense,  we  may  affirm  that  neutrality  must  he 
armed.  When  threatened,  then  without  overstepping  their  neutrality, 
the  neutral  States  may  evidently  increase  their  forces  and  hold  them 
ready,  so  that  in  case  of  necessity  they  may  by  force  of  arms  oppose 
any  attempt  against  their  position  as  neutrals,  provided  that  the  meas- 
ures taken  by  them  do  not  exceed  the  defensive  needs  of  the  legiti- 
mate protection  of  their  rights.  This  contingency,  when  such  meas- 
ures are  to  be  taken,  presents  itself  especially  in  the  case  where  neu- 
tral States  should  be  exposed  to  find  their  neutrality  violated  by  a 
belligerent  whose  territory  is  nearby,  vicinal  or  contiguous.  The  de- 
fense of  its  neutralit}'  is  a  national  and  international  duty  of  every 
neutral  State;  it  prevents  wars  from  extending  over  large  areas;  it 
limits  the  arena  of  battle.^  When  neutral  States  observe  neutrality 
without  taking  military  measures  to  defend  it  in  case  of  need,  neu- 


tions  which  preceded  its  conclusion  and  the  facts  which  led  thereto,  it  is  best 
to  read  up  on  these  matters  in  the  very  substantial  and  complete  work  of  Mr. 
Paul  Fauchille,  entitled :  French  Diplomacy  and  the  League  of  Neutrals  of  1780 
(Paris,  1893). 

The  wars  of  those  troublous  times  brought  again  home  to  the  Powers 
of  the  North  the  necessity  to  insure  the  rights  of  the  neutral  flag 
by  means  of  defensive  alliances.  Hence,  the  second  armed  neutrality  in 
1800.  To  this  eflFect,  Russia  concluded  treaties  with  Sweden,  Denmark  and 
Prussia.  The  principles  of  the  first  armed  neutrality  were  resanctioned  by 
it,  increased  and  interpreted  as  appeared  then  necessary.  Yet,  this  new  armed 
neutrality  was  not  adopted  by  as  many  Powers  as  the  first;  its  life  was  only  of 
short  duration.  Six  months  after  its  conclusion,  Great  Britain  succeeded  in 
forming  an  alliance  with  Russia  through  a  maritime  convention  to  which  Den- 
mark and  Sweden  were  compelled  to  accede.  In  1807  Russia  informed  England 
that  she  regarded  the  maritime  convention  as  annulled  and  reaffirmed  the  basis 
of  the  armed  neutrality  by  pledging  herself  never  to  depart  from  that  system. 
Later  on,  at  the  time  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Oerebro  Treaty  between  Sweden, 
England  and  Russia  (1812),  neither  the  maritime  convention  nor  the  system 
of  armed  neutralitv  were  reestablished.  See  Kliiber,  Droit  des  gens  moderne 
de  I'Europe,  Sections  307,  308,  309  (edition  of  1874),  pp.  440,  441. 

^Evidently  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  neutrals  be  challenged,  in  order  to 
justify  their  military  measures  calculated  to  defend  their  neutrality  against  the 
enterprises  of  the  belligerents;  imminence  of  such  a  danger  sufficiently  justifies 
them  to  resort  to  these  measures. 


206  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

trality  is  said  to  be  peaceful  in  contradistinction  to  armed  neutrality; 
but  it  is  an  inappropriate  expression,  because  any  neutrality,  even 
armed  neutrality,  is  a  peaceful  neutrality,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  neu- 
trals arming  solely  to  protect  their  neutrality  do  so  only  to  remain  at 
peace.  The  expressions  peaceful  and  armed  do  not,  moreover,  ex- 
press necessarily  opposite  ideas :  the  former  refers  to  a  moral  dispo- 
sition, and  the  second  expresses  a  fact.  It  must  be  recognized  that 
this  inexact  designation  is  merely  another  manifestation  of  the  ten- 
dency of  writers  to  indulge  in  subtle  and  clever  language.  The  term 
armed  neutrality  has  also  been  given  to  certain  alliances  which,  be- 
cause of  the  inefiiciency  of  their  isolated  forces,  various  neutral  States 
have  contracted  in  view  of  a  common  defense,  when  their  interests 
were  identic,  in  order  to  compel  belligerents  to  recognize  their  rights 
and,  betimes,  their  pretensions.  The  armed  neutralities  of  1780  and 
of  1800  between  the  Powers  of  the  North,  are  a  very  memorable 
example  of  such  alliances,  although,  according  to  the  observation  of 
Kleen,  they  were  not  confined  to  the  defense  of  rights  already  recog- 
nized ;  they  instituted  new  legislation ;  and  they  were  something  more 
than  an  armed  neutrality  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word.^ 


PRITTWITZ  u.  GAFFRON :  Die  hcwaffnete  Neutralitdt,  ihre  theo- 
retische  und  praktische  Bedeutung.     Borna,  Leipzig,  1907. 

Friedrich  Wilhelm  von  Prittwitz  und  Gaffron,  born  1885,  Referendar  at 
Frankfort-on-the-Main,  submitted  the  above  work  as  an  inaugural  thesis  for 
the  attainment  of  the  doctorate  from  the  law  faculty  of  the  University  of 
Leipzig. 


Page  //. — The  basis  for  the  admissibility  of  an  armed  neutrality  has 
its  root  in  national  sovereignty,  in  virtue  of  which  the  State  may  for- 
bid any  and  all  foreign  attack  within  the  realm  of  its  authority  inter- 
nationally circumscribed  on  the  ground  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
self-preservation.^    Even  as  the  human  being  may  for  the  preservation 


^Kleen,  Lois  ct  usages  dc  la  ncutralite,  1898,  vol.  1,  bk.  1,  ch.  2.  sec.  22,  p.  119, 
note  1. 

2Gareis,  Itustitutioncn  dcs  Volkcrrechts,  p.  93 ;  v.  Liszt,  Das  Volkerrecht.  p. 
62. 


PRITTWITZ  u.  GAFFRON  207 

of  his  integrity  resort  to  self-defense  in  case  of  unlawful  attack,  so  is 
the  neutral  State  permitted  to  resort  to  self-defense  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  its  status  defined  and  acknowledged  internationally.  It  is 
therefore  thoroughly  consequential  when  the  theory  of  the  law  of 
nations  entitles  the  neutral  to  protest  against  the  belligerent  parties' 
destruction  of  him  in  his  peaceful  relations,  and  confers  upon  him  the 
further  right,  lo  defend  this  claim  and  to  prevent  its  violation  through 
armed  forces.  On  the  other  hand,  and  in  spite  of  the  justification 
of  his  motive,  any  aggressive  measure  of  the  neutral  would  mean  an 
unlawful  "trespass  of  self-defense."  In  the  two  kinds  of  neutrality — 
temporary  and  continuous — neutrality  may  therefore  assume  the  form 
of  "armed  neutrality."  ^  In  a  continuous  neutrality,  armament  be- 
comes an  absolute  duty  of  the  neutralized  State,  because  the  latter 
must  by  all  means  at  its  command  prevent  foreign  military  bodies  from 
crossing  its  territory.  "It  must  resort  to  all  its  means  of  strength  for 
the  purpose  of  defense."-  Hence  we  understand  how  in  fact,  Bel- 
gium^ and  Switzerland*  maintain  strong  frontier  fortifications  and 
give  great  attention  to  the  readiness  of  their  armies.^ 

It  is  in  accord  with  the  entire  logical  development  of  the  idea  of 
neutrality  that  the  freedom  to  enter  into  alliances  with  one  another  is 
universally  recognized,  especially  for  the  purpose  of  self-defense,  that 
is  to  say,  when  each  of  the  allied  States  has  placed  itself  in  a  status 
of  armed  neutrality.  The  question  is  now  as  to  whether  or  not  this 
holds  true  also  for  neutralized  States?  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
law  of  nations  which  entitles  them  to  wage  a  defensive  war"  gives 
them  the  further  right  to  enter  into  defensive  alliances,'^  the  question 
may  therefore  be  answered  affirmatively.  Moreover,  this  question 
would  become  one  of  actuality,  only  if  the  guaranteeing  Powers  vio- 
lated their  duties. 

Page  20. — In  the  history  of  international  law,  where  is  it  that  we 
meet  for  the  first  time  with  the  concept  of  armed  neutrality  in  its 
practical  application? 


iBluntschli,  Bas  moderne  Volkerrccht  der  Zivilisierten  Staaten,  p.  418,  §  752. 

^Bonfils,  Lchrbuch  des  Volkerrechts,  pp.  185-86. 

^For  instance,  Namur,  Liege. 

^For  instance,  at  St.  Gothard. 

^Schweizer,  Geschichte  der  schweizerischen  Ncutrnlit'dt,  pp.  1030  et  seq. 

^Heffter-Geffcken,  Das  Europdische  Volkerrecht  der  Gegenwart.  p.  318. 

''Bonfils,  loc.  cit.,  p.  185 ;  Rivier,  Lehrbuch  des  Volkerrechts,  p.  329. 


20S  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

As  a  rule  we  refer  to  the  year  1780,  to  the  time  of  the  North  Amer- 
ican War  of  Independence.  From  its  very  beginning,  this  rule  had 
constantly  met  with  increasing  interest  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
and  after  France  had  publicly  taken  sides  with  the  "rebels,"  Great 
Britain  found  itself  more  and  more  threatened  by  the  danger  of 
isolation.^  It  decided  therefore  to  secure  aid  from  Russia  and  in- 
structed its  Ambassador,  Sir  James  Harris,  to  that  effect ;  and  the 
latter  soon  succeeded  in  gaining  the  confidence  of  Empress  Catherine 
II.  Count  Panin,  the  Russian  Chancellor,  met  these  efforts  by  declar- 
ing that  the  interests  of  national  welfare  demanded  strict  neutrality 
on  the  part  of  Russia. 

In  the  course  of  these  negotiations  the  war  operations  were  extended 
and  the  complaints  of  the  neutral  countries  increased  in  number  on 
account  of  the  injury  caused  to  their  commercial  interests.  The  dan- 
ger of  the  privateers  became  ever  greater.  Such  an  attack  of  an 
American  corsair  in  the  year  1778  had  given  rise  to  a  convention 
between  the  Powers  of  the  North  called  the  Russian-Swedish-Danish 
Concert  (1779),^  which  purposed  the  neutralization  of  a  part  of  the 
North  Sea.  But  Spain's  participation  in  the  war  against  England  and 
her  disregard  of  the  neutral  flag  made  the  status  of  the  neutrals  worse 
again ;  this  proved  an  incentive  to  the  efforts  of  Sir  Harris  who  had 
found  a  confederate  in  Prince  Potemkin,  the  favorite  of  the  Empress. 
Two  cases  following  one  another  in  swift  succession — the  seizure  of 
two  Russian  ships  by  the  Spaniards^ — which  roused  the  Empress  to 
great  anger,  seemed  to  bring  Harris  near  to  the  realization  of  his  aim, 
that  is  to  say,  to  make  her  an  ally  of  England.  In  February,  1780, 
Catherine  issued  a  ukase  to  the  admiralty  for  the  mobilization  of  a 
flotilla  of  fifteen  ships,  a  spontaneous  act  of  which  Panin  had  had  no 
foreknowledge.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  measure  was  a 
political  announcement  by  Russia  that  this  had  to  take  place,  and  that 
she  would  set  forth  therein  Russia's  idea  of  the  rights  of  neutrality 


iBergbohm,  Die  bcwaffnete  Ncutralitdt,  1780-1783,  pp.  51  ct  scq.;  Bonfils,  loc. 
cit.,  pp.  763  ct  seq.;  Biisch,  Sdmtliche  Schriften,  vol.  4,  pp.  352  et  seq.;  v.  Dohm, 
Denkwiirdigkeifcn  mciucr  Zeit,  vol.  2,  pp.  100  et  seq.;-  Peels,  Darstellung  des 
gemeinen  dcutschen  und  dcs  hamburgischen  Handelsrechts  fiir  Juristen  und 
KauAeute,  vol.  3,  pp.  1208  ct  scq. 

2This  Concert  is  the  precursor  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780;  in  the  course 
of  the  negotiations.  Court  Bernstorff,  the  Danish  Chancellor,  had  set  forth  prin- 
ciples which  are  the  foundation  of  those  contained  in  Empress  Catherine's  dec- 
laration of   1780. 

■''Wiegner,  Die  Kriegskontcrbande  in  der  Vdlkcrrechtswissenschaft  und  in 
der  Staatenpraxis,  p.  86. 


PRITTWITZ  u.  GAFFRON  209 

and  threatened  the  armed  support  of  her  views;  all  this  was  clear  to 
Catherine  II  ;^  and  although  Count  Panin,  who  had  been  entrusted 
with  the  elaboration  of  her  plan,  had  so  formulated  it^  as  to  take 
a  leaf  out  of  Sir  Harris'  plans  and  had  brought  the  Empress  herself 
into  other  tracks  than  she  may  have  at  first  realized,  yet  the  initiative 
of  this  plan  can  not  be  denied  to  the  Empress.^ 

Two  weeks  after  the  issuance  of  the  ukase  to  the  admiralty,  Febru- 
ary 27,  1780,  the  world-famous  declaration  of  Catherine  was  approved 
and  on  the  following  day  forwarded  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  accompanied  by  a  rescript,  which  referred  to  the 
mobilization  on  the  part  of  the  Russian  fleet  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
tecting commercial  navigation,  and  followed  by  a  ukase  to  the  Board 
of  Trade  with  appropriate  measures  and  directions  which  the  Board 
was  expected  to  follow.  This  declaration  was  the  foundation  for  the 
treaties  concluded  between  Russia  and  Denmark  of  July  9th  and 
between  Russia  and  Sweden  of  August  1st,  which  treaties,  mutually 
recognized,  led  to  an  alliance  of  the  three  northern  realms.*  This 
alliance  was  acceded  to  in  the  following  years  by  Prussia.  Austria,  the 
United  States,  Holland,  Portugal,  and  Naples.^ 

Taking  its  appellation  from  the  text  of  the  declaration  referred  to, 
history  has  given  to  this  neutrality  alliance  the  name  of  "The  Armed 
Neutrality  of  1780,"  and  the  special  significance  of  this  alliance  as  a 
political  system  seems  to  justify  its  name  of  the  "first"  armed  neu- 
trality. 

Page  2.j. — Two  decades  after  the  "first"  armed  neutrality  we  again 
find  the  northern  States  united  under  the  leadership  of  Russia  in  a 
neutrality  alliance,  which  belongs  to  the  group  of  armed  neutralities, 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  so-called  second  armed  neutrality.^  In  the  year 
1794,  when  the  English  through  the  occupation  of  the  island  of  Cor- 
sica had  won  a  point  of  support  in  the  Mediterranean,  the  interference 
with  neutral  navigation  started  anew.     To  protect  themselves  against 


iWith  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  first  armed  neutrality,  see  Bergbohm,  loc. 
cit.,  pp.  239  et  seq.,  241,  note  1;  Gessner,  Droit  des  ncutres,  pp.  39  et  seq.;  van 
de  Poll,  De  principiis  foederis  quod  dicitur  neutralitas  arniata,  pp.  10  et  seq.; 
Poels,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  1207  et  seq. 

2By  the  use  of  Bernstorff's  ideas. 

3Fauchille,  La  diplomatic  frauQaisc  et  la  ligue  des  ncutres  de  1780,  p.  355, 
who  credits  the  French  Ambassador  Vergennes  with  a  considerable  cooperation. 

*Bergbohm,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  162-63. 

^Bonfils,  loc.  cit.,  p.  45. 

«See  Bergbohm,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  256  et  seq.;  Bonfils,  loc.  cit.,  p.  453;  Gessner,  loc. 
cit.,  pp.  44  et  seq.;  Poels,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  1212  et  seq. 


210  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  inconsiderate  exercise  of  the  right  of  search  on  the  part  of  the 
belHgerents, — France  and  England, — Sweden  and  Norway  at  first  had 
their  ships  sail  under  convoy.^  But  England  could  not  be  deterred 
from  resorting  nevertheless  to  forcible  searches,  and  in  the  year  1800 
the  English  attacked  and  captured  a  Danish  frigate  which,  according 
to  her  instructions,  would  by  force  prevent  the  search  of  her  convoy. 
This  was  the  immediate  reason  which  led  Emperor  Paul  I  of  Russia, 
who  was  kept  informed  by  the  Danes  of  the  unavailing  negotiations 
which  took  place  with  England  with  regard  to  this  incident,  to  con- 
clude, December  4,  1800,  the  convention  of  the  so-called  second  armed 
neutrality.  During  the  same  month,  Prussia  also  joined  this  conven- 
tion. Through  diplomatic  notes.  Great  Britain  soon  thereafter  made 
representations  at  the  Prussian  and  Danish  Courts  because  of  the 
unfriendly  tendencies  of  the  agreement.  When  these  representations  did 
not  yield  the  expected  results,  the  English  Government  on  January  14, 
1801,  gave  orders  to  seize  all  Danish,  Swedish  and  Russian  ships  (Rus- 
sia had  acted  in  like  manner  toward  English  ships)  and  sent  a  fleet 
to  the  Baltic  Sea.  In  answer  to  this  act,  the  Danish  Government  placed 
an  embargo  upon  English  ships.  Unfortunately,  the  Danish  fleet  could 
not  prevent  the  onward  course  of  the  English  squadron.  Denmark's 
defeat  brought  about  the  suspension  of  the  principles  of  the  neutrality 
alliance  through  the  armistice  concluded  on  April  9th  of  that  year. 
The  fate  of  the  second  armed  neutrality  was  completely  sealed  through 
the  convention  which  Great  Britain  concluded  on  June  17,  1801,  with 
the  successor  of  Paul  I,  Emperor  Alexander  I,  which  almost  entirely 
disregarded  the  postulates  of  the  allies  of  1800.- 

These  historic  sketches  are  deemed  sufficient  as  a  characterization 
of  the  development  of  armed  neutrality  in  the  applied  law  of  nations. 


RIVIER :  Principcs  dn  Droit  des  Gens.    Paris,  1896. 

Alphonse  Rivier.     Swiss  publicist;  born  in  1835;  died  in  1898;  consul-general 

of  Switzerland  in  Brussels ;  professor  of  international  law  in  the  University  of 

Brussels ;  member  of  the  Institute  of  International  Law.  Professor  Rivier  is 
known  in  international  law  for  two  treatises : 


^That  is  to  say,  under  the  protection  of  a  war-ship  which  thus  assumed  the 
responsibility  for  the  cargo. 

2Bergbohm,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  259  ct  scq.;  Poels,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  1216  et  scq. 


RIVIER  211 

1.  Lehrbuch  dcs  volkerrechts.    First  edition,  1889;  second  edition,  1899. 

2.  Principes  du  droit  dcs  gens,  2  volumes,  1896. 

Rivier  is  universally  regarded  as  a  masterly  expounder  of  modern  international 
law. 


Volume  2,  page  S?^- — The  wars  of  the  last  century  were  fatal  to 
neutrals. 

England,  especially,  carried  to  the  extreme  the  real  or  alleged  rights 
of  belligerents,  chiefly  at  sea.  All  commerce  with  the  enemy  was  for- 
bidden to  neutrals,  the  conception  of  contraband  of  war  was  extended 
beyond  all  measure ;  paper  blockade  or  English  blockade  was  in  favor ; 
the  rule  of  war  of  1756  is  still  famous ;  the  admiralty  invented  the 
doctrine  of  continuous  voyage. 

The  extreme  practices  of  England  brought  about  a  reaction,  which 
manifested  itself  in  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780.*  This  movement 
owed  its  origin  to  the  great  Empress  Catherine,  who  was  ably  sec- 
onded by  the  Danish  Minister,  Andre  von  BernstorfT  (1735-1797), 
and  also,  as  has  recently  been  shown,  to  the  diplomatic  action  of 
France.  "The  league  of  neutrals,"  says  Mr.  Fauchille,  "appears  to  us 
to  have  been  the  joint  work  of  France  and  of  Russia.  It  was  Louis 
XVI's  Minister,  M.  de  Vergennes,  who  first  conceived  the  idea,  but 
it  was  Catherine  II  who  realized  this  great  conception,  and  this  reali- 
zation was  a  deliberate  act  on  her  part." 

Catherine's  declaration  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Versailles,  and 
Madrid,  is  dated  March  9/February  27,  1780.  *It  received  the  sanc- 
tion of  Denmark  and  of  Sweden  by  their  treaties  of  July  9  and  of 
August  1  of  the  same  year;  between  1781  and  1783  the  Netherlands, 
Prussia,  Austria,  the  Two  Sicilies,  Portugal,  France,  and  the  United 
States  acceded  to  it.  The  following  are  the  most  important  passages 
thereof:  "[The  Empress]  thought  it  but  just  to  publish  to  all  Europe 
the  principles  she  means  to  follow,  which  are  the  most  proper  to 
prevent  any  misunderstanding,  or  any  occurrences  that  may  occasion 


iQn  the  armed  neutrality:  Bergbohm,  Die  hewaffnete  Neutralitdt,  1/80-1783. 
Eine  Entzmckelungsphase  dcs  Volkerrechts  im  Seckriege.  1884.  Martens,  Revue 
de  droit  international,  vol.  13,  pp.  94-97;  vol.  16.  pp.  312-314.  Recueil  des  traites 
de  la  Russie.  vol.  9  (10).  pp.  295  ct  scq.  Mr.  Martens  attempts  to  prove,  con- 
trary to  the  opinion  expressed  by  Wheaton,  which  was  founded  especially  on 
the  dissertation  of  Goertz  and  the  authority  of  Dohm,  that  the  league  of  neu- 
trals was  indeed  the  personal  accomplishment  of  the  great  Empress.  Fauchille, 
La  diplomatic  frangaisc  et  la  liguc  des  neutrcs  de  I/80  (1776-1783).  Work 
crowned  bv  the  Institute  of  France.     1893. 


212  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

it.  Her  Imperial  Majesty  does  it  with  the  more  confidence,  as  she 
finds  these  principles  coincident  with  the  primitive  right  of  nations 
which  every  people  may  reclaim,  and  which  the  belligerent  Powers 
can  not  invalidate  without  violating  the  laws  of  neutrality,  and  without 
disavowing  the  maxims  they  have  adopted  in  the  different  treaties 
and  public  engagements.  They  are  reducible  to  the  following  points: 
(1)  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war;  (2)  that  the  effects  belonging 
to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral 
vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  merchandise;  (3)  that,  as 
to  the  specification  of  the  above-mentioned  merchandise,  the  Empress 
holds  to  what  is  enumerated  in  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of  her  treaty 
of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  extending  her  obligations  to  all  the 
Powers  at  war;  (4)  that  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded 
port,  this  designation  shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking 
Power  has  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as 
to  render  access  thereto  clearly  dangerous;  (5)  that  these  principles 
shall  serve  as  a  rule  for  proceedings  and  judgments  as  to  the  legality 
of  prizes. 

"Her  Imperial  Majesty,  in  making  these  points  public,  does  not 
hesitate  to  declare,  that  to  maintain  them,  and  to  protect  the  honor  of 
her  flag,  the  security  of  the  trade  and  navigation  of  her  subjects,  she 
has  prepared  the  greatest  part  of  her  maritime  forces.  This  measure 
will  not,  however,  influence  the  strict  neutrality  she  does  observe,  and 
will  observe,  so  long  as  she  is  not  provoked  and  forced  to  exceed  the 
limits  of  moderation  and  perfect  impartiality.  It  will  be  only  in  this 
extremity  that  her  fleet  have  orders  to  go  wherever  honor,  interest, 
and  need  may  require." 

The  Russo-Prussian  treaty  of  May  8,  1781,  defines  the  fifth  point 
still  further:  "that  neutral  vessels  may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause 
and  when  the  facts  are  perfectly  evident ;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged 
without  delay ;  that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and 
legal ;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  granted  to  vessels 
which  have  suffered  loss  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  in  each  case  be  rendered  for  the  insult  to  the  flag." 

"It  is  perfectly  true,"  says  Mr.  Geftcken,  "that  the  allied  States 
themselves,  and  Russia  in  particular,  afterwards  abandoned  and  sac- 
rificed the  principles  which  they  had  proclaimed  as  the  palladium  of 
neutrals  and  the  foundation  of  international  maritime  law.    The  armed 


RIVIER  213 

neutrality  of  1780  retains  none  the  less  its  great  historical  and  legal 
scope.  ...  It  has  shown  that  even  the  strongest  maritime  Power 
may  be  constrained  to  conform  its  conduct  to  the  demands  of  neutrals, 
when  the  latter  are  united.''  i\lthough  England  did  not  renounce  any 
of  its  principles,  it  found  itself  forced  to  deal  gently  with  neutrals, 
and  in  the  later  years  of  the  war  it  comported  itself,  on  the  whole, 
in  conformity  with  the  principles  proclaimed  in  the  declaration  of 
1780. 

In  the  matter  of  the  rights  of  neutrals,  as  in  divers  other  matters, 
the  wars  of  the  revolution  and  of  the  Empire  marked  a  step  back- 
ward. Neither  the  allies  nor  France  permitted  neutrality  in  fact. 
France,  by  its  laws  and  decrees  of  1793,  renounced  the  principles  of 
armed  neutrality,  and  even  the  principles  that  had  been  sanctioned  by 
earlier  treaties.  In  its  ordinances  of  the  same  year,  England  main- 
tained its  old  maxims,  and  with  the  support  of  Prussia  forced  the 
other  States  to  accept  them.  In  Denmark,  however.  Bernstorff 
resisted,  but  Russia  was  easily  converted  to  the  theories  which  it  had 
combatted  thirteen  years  before.  Article  3,  and  especially  Article  4  of 
the  Anglo-Russian  treaty  of  March  25,  1793,  are  significant.  The 
King  and  the  Empress  "engage  to  unite  all  their  efforts  to  prevent 
other  Powers,  not  implicated  in  this  war,  from  giving,  on  this  occa- 
sion of  common  concern  to  every  civilized  State,  any  protection  what- 
ever, directly,  or  indirectly  in  consequence  of  their  neutrality,  to  the 
commerce  or  property  of  the  French,  on  the  sea,  or  in  the  ports  of 
France."  Thenceforth  forcible  measures  against  neutrals  increased 
on  all  sides.    It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  state  them  in  detail. 

A  new  phase  developed  in  1800.  The  installation  of  the  Prize 
Council  (1801)  inaugurated  it  in  France.  For  the  four  Powers  of 
the  North  and  France,  the  second  armed  neutrality  of  December  6/18, 

1800,  renewed  in  general,  though  in  weakened  form,  the  declarations 
of  the  first,  and  it  added  provisions  with  regard  to  convoy.  Russia 
once  again  became  the  protector  of  neutrals.  England  did  not  keep 
them  waiting  long  for  a  reply.     A  cabinet  order,  dated  January  14, 

1801,  put  an  embargo  on  Russian,  Swedish,  and  Danish  vessels,  and 
the  maritime  convention  of  June  17,  1801,  put  an  end  to  the  second 
league  of  neutrals.  Six  years  later,  however,  Alexander  annulled  the 
convention  of  June  17  and  again  proclaimed  the  principles  of  1780.^ 


^On  the  history  of  the  maritime  convention  and  the  declaration  of  1807,  see 
Martens,  Recueil  des  traites  russcs,  vol.  11,  pp.  1-28;  106-142. 


214  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

TRESCOT:  The  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution.    New  York,  1852. 

William  Henry  Trescot.  American  publicist  and  diplomat;  born  in  1822; 
died  in  1898 ;  studied  law  at  Harvard  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1843 ; 
assistant  secretary  of  state  in  1860 ;  member  of  State  Legislature  of  South  Caro- 
lina; counsel  for  United  States  before  Halifax  Fishery  Commission  in  1877; 
minister  to  Chile  in  1881-1882,  and  delegate  to  Pan  American  Congress  in 
Washington.  His  writings  include  The  Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution,  1852,  An 
American  View  of  the  Eastern  Question,  1854;  and  The  Diplomatic  History  of 
the  Administrations  of  Washington  and  Adams,  1857. 


Page  /2. — The  second  event  to  which  reference  has  been  made  as 
exciting  the  hopes  of  American  statesmen,  and  exercising  a  large 
though  indirect  influence  upon  the  relative  position  of  the  belligerents, 
was  the  formation  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780.^  Its  history  is 
important  under  two  aspects — first,  as  affecting  the  practical  combina- 
tion of  European  nations,  and  second,  as  declaring  a  new  system  of 
maritime  law.  The  treaty  of  1763  had,  to  a  great  extent,  separated 
England  from  a  continental  connexion,  and  in  the  war  with  her 
colonies  she  was  absolutely  without  an  ally.  The  treaty  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  the  declaration  of  war  by  Spain,  the 
very  uncertain  temper  of  Holland,  compelled  England  to  renew,  if 
possible,  an  alliance  with  some  of  the  European  Powers.  Sir  James 
Harris,  afterwards  better  known  as  Lord  Malmesbury,  was  despatched 
to  St.  Petersburgh  to  effect,  if  possible,  a  political  combination.  San- 
guine, adroit,  and  bold,  he  hoped  too  soon,  moved  too  fast,  and  ven- 
tured too  much ;  and  without  paradox  it  may  be  said  that  his  very 
ability  disabled  him.  He  found  the  power  of  the  court  divided  be- 
tween Potemkin,  a  rising,  and  Panin,  a  setting  favorite.  He  secured 
the  one,  but  provoked  the  other ;  and  although  he  estimated  their  posi- 
tions rightly,  he  found,  to  use  the  apt  comparison  of  Goertz,  that  if 
Count  Panin  was  "a  star  that  hastened  visibly  to  its  decline,  it  was 
still  above  the  horizon,  and  those  even  who  most  desired  to  see  it  dis- 
appear, still  believed  that  they  stood  in  need  of  its  light."  Having 
obtained,  through  the  influence  of  Potemkin,  two  private  interviews 


^Flassans,  Diplomatic  francaisc,  ml.  7.  Garden's  Traitcs  dc  paix,  vol.  5,  ch.  21. 
Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury.  Notices  historiques 
siir  le  systcmc  de  la  ncutralite  armec.  ct  son  originc,  par  M.  le  Comte  de  Goertz. 
Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  Revolution.  Hautefcuille,  Droits  et  devoirs 
des  nations  neutres;  Discours  preliminaire.  Wheaton's  History  of  International 
Law. 


TRESCOT  215 

with  the  Empress  Catharine,  he  succeeded,  after  some  important  con- 
cessions, in  persuading  her  to  consent  to  an  English  alHance.  But 
when  he  received,  in  reply  to  his  home-communications,  full  powers  to 
negotiate  such  a  treaty,  he  discovered  to  his  mortification  that  Panin, 
to  whom  the  English  alliance  was  both  politically  and  personally  dis- 
tasteful, and  from  whom  the  preliminary  interviews  with  Catharine 
had  been  carefully  concealed,  had  succeeded  in  undoing  his  work,  and 
as  Foreign  Minister  was  prepared  with  a  formal  refusal  to  negotiate. 
As  if  to  remedy  his  disappointment,  however,  news  soon  arrived  at 
St.  Petersburgh  of  the  seizure  of  two  Russian  vessels  laden  with  corn 
and  taken  by  the  Spaniards  in  the  Mediterranean.  The  indignation  of 
Catharine,  peculiarly  sensitive  as  to  her  commerce,  blazed  out ;  and, 
supported  by  Potemkin,  Lord  Malmesbury,  with  great  ability,  used  the 
fortunate  accident  to  persuade  her  to  demand  from  Spain  peremptory 
satisfaction,  and  at  the  same  time  to  fit  out  a  fleet  at  Cronstadt  to  be 
sent  to  sea  at  the  first  opportunity.  These  preparations  were  again 
carefully  concealed  from  Count  Panin,  and  Lord  Malmesbury  naturally 
and  joyfully  anticipated  their  inevitable  result — an  embroilment  with 
Spain  and  her  belligerent  allies.  Panin  soon  discovered  the  extent  and 
direction  of  this  well-contrived  manoeuvre,  and  defeated  it  by  a  policy 
at  once  bold  and  subtle.  He  expressed  deep  sympathy  with  the  natural 
indignation  of  the  Empress  at  this  violation  of  her  neutral  rights,  but 
suggested  that  instead  of  being  an  exceptional  case  needing  correc- 
tion, it  proceeded  from  a  false  system  of  public  law,  against  which  now 
was  the  time  to  protest.  If  England  agreed  with  Russia  in  condemn- 
ing the  seizure,  the  condemnation  by  Russia  of  the  principle  would  be 
equally  acceptable.  He  therefore  persuaded  the  Empress  to  publish  a 
declaration  to  all  the  belligerents  that  such  a  violation  of  neutral  rights 
would  not  be  tolerated,  and  to  call  upon  all  the  northern  and  neutral 
Powers  to  make  common  cause  in  defense  of  the  just  principles  of 
maritime  law.  He  satisfied  her  that  this  was  not  only  conformable 
to  the  desire  of  the  English  Ambassador,  but  placed  her  at  the  head 
of  a  great  league  for  a  high  and  worthy  purpose.  He  further  induced 
her  to  keep  her  communications  to  the  foreign  Courts  secret  until  they 
should  have  reached  their  destination.  The  despatches  were  written 
and  the  couriers  started,  without  any  discovery  by  Lord  Malmesbury 
of  the  nature  of  their  missives.  The  Empress  indeed  informed  him 
that  in  a  day  or  two  such  communications  would  be  made  to  his  Court 
as  would  amply  satisfy  their  desires,  and  this  gracious  news  he  him- 


216  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

self  hastened  to  communicate.  Great  then  was  the  surprise  and  indig- 
nation of  the  English  Cabinet  when  they  received  from  Russia  a  for- 
mal declaration  of  maritime  law  contradicting  the  whole  practice  of 
the  English  Government,  and  striking  at  the  foundation  of  the  system 
which  England  had  always  haughtily  maintained,  and  could  at  this  very 
juncture  least  of  all  afford  to  dispense  with.  Russia  demanded  that 
free  ships  should  make  free  goods — that  even  the  coasting  trade  of 
belligerents  should  be  opened  to  neutrals — that  contraband  should  be 
limited  and  blockades  stringent.  England  received  the  declaration 
coldly.  The  northern  Powers  eagerly  combined  with  Russia  to  form 
a  league  in  the  defense  of  this  system,  and  the  belligerents  whom  Lord 
Malmesbury  hoped  to  discomfort  seized  their  advantage.  Spain  made 
restitution,  and  in  recognizing  the  justice  of  the  new  code  pleaded  the 
arbitrary'  violence  of  England  as  her  excuse  for  having  violated  it ; 
while  France  approved  the  magnanimous  wisdom  of  the  Empress,  and 
readily  consented  to  what,  by  the  ordinances  of  1778,  she  had  already 
enacted  in  principle  as  the  law  of  her  own  marine.  Unwilling  to  aban- 
don principles  which  she  had  openly  avowed  and  always  acted  upon, 
England  saw  her  last  hope  of  a  continental  alliance  destroyed  by  this 
European  league.  Irritated  by  Holland's  evasion  as  to  her  treaty  obli- 
gations, and  the  adhesion  of  that  Republic  to  the  armed  neutrality  soon 
after,  Iingland  declared  war  against  the  Dutch.  The  practical  result 
of  the  armed  neutrality  therefore  was  to  add  one  more  to  the  open 
enemies  of  England,  and  to  render  still  more  impracticable  any  com- 
pensating alliance.  In  this  view  it  was  certainly  to  the  United  States 
an  event  of  great  importance. 

Considered  as  a  declaration  of  a  new  system  of  maritime  law,  in- 
tended to  guard  neutral  rights  and  check  the  supreme  dominion  of  the 
English  navy,  it  is  far  from  deserving  the  importance  attached  to  it 
at  the  time.  In  the  first  place  it  took  its  rise  in  an  accidental  intrigue, 
and  was  never  at  any  time  more  than  a  diplomatic  by-play  of  tem- 
porary interest.  It  passed  its  short  life  without  activity,  and  died  of 
natural  exhaustion:  and  the  Empress  herself  judged  it  rightly  when 
she  told  Lord  Malmesbury  that  it  should  be  called  rather  nnllite  armee 
than  nentraUte  armee.  The  great  maritime  belligerent  Powers  who 
acceded  to  it,  never  recognized  its  principles  except  when  convenient, 
and  it  did  not  even  reflect  the  practice  of  Russia  itself.  For  in  a  des- 
patch dated  26th  May,  1780,  Lord  Malmesbury  says  of  Admiral  Greig, 
an  eminent  officer  in  the  Russian  service,  "As  soon  as  he  read  the  declar- 


TRESCOT  217 

ation  and  saw  the  grounds  on  which  the  instructions  were  to  be  made, 
he  collected  the  various  sentences  which  had  been  pronounced  last  war 
in  the  Archipelago  by  the  Russian  tribunal  instituted  for  that  purpose, 
and  at  which  he  frequently  presided,  on  neutral  ships.  After  proving 
in  the  clearest  manner  that  they  confiscated  and  condemned  Turkish 
property  wherever  they  found  it,  and  the  only  prizes  they  made  were 
such  property  on  board  neutral  ships,  he  gave  in  the  whole  to  Count 
Czemicheff,  signifying  that  as  a  faithful  and  affectionate  servant  of 
the  Empress  he  thought  himself  obliged  to  set  before  her  eyes,  that  if 
she  carried  her  present  measures  into  execution  she  would  act  in  direct 
contradiction  to  herself."  ^ 

In  the  next  place  the  declaration,  "free  ships,  free  goods,"  was  not 
the  statement  of  a  principle,  but  the  expression  of  an  interest — an 
interest  as  shifting  as  any  of  those  movable  necessities  which  have 
always  regulated  political  combinations,  never  recognized  in  war  by 
those  very  belligerents  who  have  declaimed  about  it  in  peace.  The 
effort  to  elevate  it  into  an  international  law  has  been  only  a  struggle 
to  legalize  one  sort  of  selfishness  at  the  expense  of  another ;  and  such 
a  rule  can  take  its  place  only  in  a  system  which,  in  the  emphatic  lan- 
guage of  Sir  Wm.  Scott,  "if  it  is  consistent,  has  for  its  real  purpose 
an  entire  abolition  of  capture  in  war — that  is,  in  other  words,  to 
change  the  nature  of  hostility  as  it  has  ever  existed  among  mankind, 
and  to  introduce  a  state  of  things  not  yet  seen  in  the  world — that  of 
a  military  war  and  a  commercial  peace."  - 

The  Congress  of  the  United  States,  however,  fancied  that  they  saw 
in  the  sentiment  of  this  purely  selfish  coalition,  indication  of  such  a 
general  liberality  of  political  judgment  as  would  respond  to  the  spirit 
of  their  resistance.  Although  discouraged  by  the  more  sober  wisdom 
and  better  information  of  the  French  Court,  they  expressed  in  strong 
resolutions  their  approbation  of  the  code  of  the  neutrality,  forwarded 
these  resolutions  through  Mr.  Adams  to  the  various  Courts  who  had 
entered  into  the  league,  and  finally,  on  December  19,  1780,  despatched 
Mr.  Francis  Dana  as  Minister  to  St.  Petersburg.  In  their  instruc- 
tions they  say  to  him,  "You  will  readily  perceive  that  it  must  be  a 
leading  and  capital  point  if  these  United  States  shall  be  formally  ad- 
mitted as  a  party  to  the  convention  of  the  neutral  maritime  Powers 
for  maintaining  the  freedom  of  commerce.     This  regulation,  in  which 


^Malmeshury's  Diaries,  etc.,  vol.  1,  p.  264. 

^Judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  upon  the  Swedish  convoy,  in  the 
case  of  the  ship  Maria,  Paulsen,  master. 


218  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  Empress  is  deeply  interested,  and  from  which  she  has  derived  so 
much  glory,  will  open  the  way  for  your  favorable  reception,  which  we 
have  greater  reason  to  expect,  as  she  has  publicly  invited  the  belliger- 
ent Powers  to  accede  thereto."  ^ 

One  would  have  supposed  that  the  maintenance  of  their  own  free- 
dom was  quite  enough  for  the  attention  of  Congress ;  and  it  was,  to 
say  the  least,  a  broad  interpretation  of  Catharine's  invitation  to  sup- 
pose themselves  included  under  the  term  belligerents.  But  it  must 
be  said  for  the  statesmen  of  that  day,  that  they  never  forgot  what  they 
intended  to  be ;  and  the  uniform  language  of  their  diplomacy  was 
bold  even  to  what  their  circumstances  might  have  stigmatized  as 
presumption.  But  the  anxiety  with  which  they  sought  to  introduce 
themselves  into  the  affairs  of  Europe  was  ample  evidence  that  they 
did  not  intend  their  independence  to  be  isolation.  They  had  resolved  to 
be  one  of  the  nations  of  the  earth — one  to  whom  the  politics  of  the 
world  were  to  be  matter  of  practical  interest,  and  they  considered 
their  commerce  as  the  means  of  direct  connexion.  It  will  be  now 
generally  admitted  that  any  participation  by  the  United  States  in  this 
coalition  would  have  been  a  useless  complication  of  their  affairs,  serv- 
ing no  national  purpose  and  contributing  to  no  general  good.  The 
opportunity,  however,  was  never  offered ;  for  Mr.  Dana's  efforts,  how- 
ever able,  were  very  useless.  His  presence  in  St.  Petersburgh  resulted 
only  in  affording  Lord  Malmesbury  the  small  triumph  of  preventing 
his  public  reception  by  Russia,  even  after  the  acknowledged  indepen- 
dence of  the  United  States,  and  enabling  him  to  close  his  career  of 
disappointment  at  that  Court  by  trusting  that  he  had  "suspended  the 
appearance  of  the  American  agent  here  in  public,  till  such  time  as  it 
may  take  place  without  having  any  disagreeable  or  extraordinar}' 
effect."  - 


TWISS:  The  Laze  of  A'ations  considered  as  Independent  Political 
Communities.  On  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations  in  Time  of 
War.     Second  edition.     London,  1875. 


^Secret  Journal  of  Congress,  vol.  2,  p.  358. 

-Malmesbury' s  Diaries,  etc.,  vol.  1,  p.  506.    Despatch  to  Lord  Grantham,  March 
11.  1783. 


TWISS  219 

Sir  Travers  Twiss.  English  jurist  and  publicist;  born  in  1809;  died  in  1897. 
Professor  at  the  University  of  Oxford;  member  of  the  Institute  of  International 
Law.  In  1840  he  was  called  to  the  bar  at  Lincoln's  Inn  and  became  an  advo- 
cate at  Doctors'  Commons.  During  his  very  successful  legal  career  he  enjoyed  a 
large  practice  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  holding  many  positions  incidental  there- 
to, was  professor  of  international  law  at  King's  College,  London,  queen's  coun- 
sel, advocate  general  to  the  admiralty,  and  queen's  advocate  general.  He  also 
served  upon  a  great  number  of  royal  commissions  dealing  with  such  matters  as 
marriage  law,  neutrality,  naturalization  and  allegiance,  and  was  invited  by  the 
King  of  the  Belgians  to  draw  up  the  constitution  of  the  Congo  Free  State. 

Among  the  more  notable  of  his  numerous  publications  are  The  Rights  and 
Duties  of  Nations  in  Time  of  Peace,  1861,  second  edition,  1884;  and  The  Rights 
and  Duties  of  Nations  in  Time  of  War,  1863,  second  edition,  1875.  The  two 
works  appeared  in  French  in  1887. 


Page  268. — One  result  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  was  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  a  common  concert  amongst  the  continental 
Powers  on  the  subject  of  contraband  of  war,  although  such 
concert  could  only  take  effect  amongst  the  Powers  which  were  parties 
to  the  treaties  and  declarations  ;^  for  it  w^as  not  attempted  on  occa- 
sion of  either  of  the  armed  neutralities  of  1780  or  1800  to  set  aside 
the  treaty-engagements  as  to  contraband  of  war,  which  existed  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  Powers  respectively  which  were  parties 
to  either  armed  neutrality ;  on  the  contrary,  there  were  express 
stipulations  that  in  the  matter  of  contraband,  each  State  should  adhere 
to  its  existing  engagements  with  other  States.  It  is  consistent  there- 
fore with  the  custom  of  contracting  which  prevails  amongst  the 
European  Powers,  that  the  same  nation  should  have  different  conven- 
tions on  the  subject  of  contraband  of  war  with  different  nations. 
"Hence  it  arises,  that  the  catalogue  of  contraband  has  varied  very 
much,"  as  observed  by  Lord  Stowell,  "and  sometimes  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  make  it  ver}-  difficult  to  assign  the  reason  of  the  variations,  owing 
to  particular  circumstances,  the  history  of  which  has  not  accompanied 
the  history  of  the  decisions."  - 


iThe  declarations  of  Prussia  on  the  subject  of  contraband  of  war  will  be  found 
at  post,  p.  398;  and  that  of  Austria,  post,  p.  404. 
2The  Jonge  Margarctha.  1  Ch.  Robinson,  p.  192. 


220  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

WALKER:     The    Science    of    International    Lau.     London,    1893. 

Thomas  Alfred  Walker.  Contemporary  English  publicist  and  clergyman ;  born 
in  1862;  fellow  and  lecturer  of  Peterhouse  College,  Cambridge;  senior  Whewell 
scholar  in  international  law,  1884 ;  examiner  in  constitutional  history,  roman  law 
and  jurisprudence  in  University  of  London  ;  member  of  the  International  Law 
Association  and  of  several  other  societies  interested  in  international  and  social 
problems.  Among  his  publications  are:  The  Science  of  International  Law, 
1893;  A  Manual  of  Public  International  Laiv,  1895;  A  History  of  the  Law  of 
Nations,  1  volume,  1899. 


Page  joj. — The  armed  neutrality  of  17(S0  was  an  outcome  of  the 
intrigues  of  Count  Panin  working  in  the  interests  of  France  and 
Prussia  upon  the  vanity  of  the  Empress  Catharine,  who  was  herself 
well-inclined  to  British  views.^  Already  in  1778  Sweden  and  Den- 
mark had  approached  the  Empress  with  formal  proposals  for  the  for- 
mation of  a  combined  fleet  for  the  protection  of  the  neutral  trade  of 
the  north  against  all  attack."  It  was  not  until  early  in  1780  that,  chaf- 
ing under  the  indignities  to  which  she  deemed  herself  to  have  been 
subjected  by  the  submission  of  her  neutral  commerce  to  the  belligerent 
right  of  search,  she  caused  to  be  presented  to  the  three  belligerent 
Courts  of  London,  Versailles  and  Madrid  a  declaration,  wherein  she 
set  out  certain  principles  which,  without  departing  from  the  strict  and 
rigorous  neutrality  which  she  had  hithereto  inviolably  observed,  she 
expressed  herself  determined  alike  to  adopt  and  effectively  defend.^ 
She  took  this  step,  she  said,  with  the  more  confidence  "qu'Elle  trouve 
consignes  ces  principes  dans  le  droit  primitif  des  peuples,  que  toute 
nation  est  fondee  a  reclamer,  et  que  les  Puissances  belligerantes  ne 
sauroient  les  invalider  sans  violer  les  loix  de  la  neutralite,  et  sans 
desavouer  les  maximes  qu'elles  ont  adoptees,  nommement  dans  dif- 
lerens  traites  et  en_e;agem,ens  publics." 


^Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmeshur\\  vol.  1,  pp.  219  et  seq. 
Sir  J.  Harris  to  Viscount  Stormont,  April  24/May  5,  1780,  ibid.  299.  Same  to 
Same,  15/26  May,  1780,  ibid.  307.  Sir  James  Harris  to  Hugh  Elliott,  7/18  Feb- 
ruary, 1782,  ibid.  485  et  seq. 

2Mr.  Harris  to  the  Earl  of  Suffolk,  11/22  Dec,  1778,  Diaries  and  Correspond- 
ence of  the  Earl  of  Malmcsbury,  vol.  1,  pp.  219-220.  Lord  Hillsborough  was  un- 
fortunate enough  to  excite  the  wrath  of  Catharine  by  a  jesting  remark  that  "'Her 
Imperial  Majesty's  commercial  navy  was  already  the  best  guarded  in  Europe, 
as  she  had  a  man-of-war  to  each  merchantman."     Ibid.  219. 

^Declaration  of  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  to  the  Courts  of 
London,  Versailles  and  Madrid,  post,  p.  273. 


WALKER  221 

The  principles  proclaimed  in  this  imposing  fashion  m  the  name  of 
neutraUty  and  universal  justice  are  set  forth  in  five  articles. 

1.  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port 
en  port  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2.  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  Puissances  en 
guerre,  soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3.  Que  rimperatrice  se  tient  quant  a  la  fixation  de  celles-ci  a  ce 
qui  est  enonce  dans  I'Art.  X  et  XI  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la 
Grande-Bretagne,  en  etendant  ces  obligations  a  toutes  les  Puissances 
en  guerre. 

4.  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
cord  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui,  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance,  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

5.  Que  ces  principes  servent  de  regie  dans  les  procedures  et  les 
jugemens  sur  la  legalite  des  prises.^ 

These  articles  became  the  basis  of  the  first  armed  neutrality.^ 
The  reception  accorded  to  the  imperial  declaration  by  the  various 
Powers  of  Europe,  and  its  ultimate  fate  forms  a  sufficient  comment 
upon  its  character. 

Great  Britain,  struggling  desperately  with  a  host  of  foes,  with  the 
combined  force  of  her  revolted  colonies  and  of  her  ancient  enemies 
France  and  Spain,  could  little  afford  to  forfeit  the  good-will  of  the 
first  Power  of  the  North.  Yet  the  British  Government,  preferring  to 
risk  the  loss  of  an  all-powerful  ally  rather  than  adopt  that  attitude  of 
politic  complaisance  which  their  ambassador  at  St.  Petersburg — the 
astute  and  able  Harris'' — urgently  advised,*  returned  a  reply  of  simple 
and  unyielding  dignity.     During  the  whole  course  of  the  war,  said  the 


^Post,  p.  641. 

-The  precise  extent  of  the  term  contraband  being  in  the  various  acts  of  acces- 
sion set  out  in  detail,  and  the  fifth  article  of  the  Imperial  program  being  fur- 
ther explained,  the  principles  of  the  first  armed  neutrality  were  four;  see  post, 
P-  299. 

^James  Harris,  afterwards  first  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  a  diplomatist  whose 
eminent  abilities  displayed  in  a  peculiarly  successful  career  amply  justified 
Mirabeau's  fear  of  "cet  audacieux  et  ruse  Harris"  and  Talleyrand's  opinion  of 
him  as  the  most  able  English  minister  of  his  day.  Diaries  and  Correspondence 
of  James  Harris,  First  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  edited  by  his  grandson,  the  third 
Earl.     Introductory  Memoir,  xvii. 

*Harris  to  Viscount  Stormont,  13/24  Dec,  1780,  Diaries  and  Correspondence 
of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.  1,  pp.  368-9. 


222  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Ministers  of  George  III,  in  which  His  Majesty  was  then  engaged  in 
consequence  of  the  aggression  of  France  and  Spain,  he  had  mani- 
fested those  sentiments  of  justice,  equity  and  moderation  which  were 
wont  to  govern  all  his  deaUngs.  He  had  regulated  his  conduct  to- 
wards friendly  and  neutral  Powers  in  accordance  with  theirs  in  his 
regard,  conforming  it  to  the  clearest  and  most  generally  recognized 
principles  of  the  law  of  nations — the  sole  standard  for  nations  who 
were  bound  by  no  particular  treaty — and  to  the  tenor  of  his  different 
engagements  with  other  Powers,  engagements  which  had  varied  the 
normal  law  by  mutual  stipulations,  and  that  in  many  various  ways, 
according  to  the  will  and  convenience  of  the  contracting  parties. 
Firmly  bound  to  Her  Imperial  Majesty  by  the  ties  O'f  mutual  amity 
and  of  common  interest,  he  had  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  war 
given  strict  orders  for  the  display  of  respect  to  her  flag  and  to  the 
commerce  of  her  subjects,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  nations,  and 
the  tenor  of  his  engagements  with  her,  engagements  which  he  would 
fulfil  with  the  most  scrupulous  precision.  These  orders  had  been  re- 
newed, and,  should  the  least  violation  occur,  liis  admiralty  tribunals, 
guided  in  their  decisions  solely  and  entirely  by  the  general  law  of 
nations  and  the  stipulations  of  particular  treaties,  would  redress  the 
wrong  in  such  fashion,  that  Her  Majesty  would  recognize  in  their 
judgments  that  spirit  of  justice  by  which  she  was  herself  animated.^ 

A  singular  contrast  to  this  calm  and  self-respecting  language  was 
afforded  by  the  enthusiastic  acclamations  of  France  and  Spain. 

Louis  XVI,  moved  by  no  other  inducement  in  the  war  in  which  he 
found  himself  engaged  than  by  the  attachment  which  he  felt  for  the 
principle  of  the  liberty  of  the  seas,  could  only  experience  a  lively  satis- 
faction in  seeing  the  adoption  of  that  same  principle  by  Imperial 
Russia.  "Ce  que  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  reclame  de  la  part  des  Puis- 
sances belligerantes,  n'est  autre  chose,  que  les  regies  prescrites  a  la 
marine  Frangoise,  et  dont  I'execution  est  maintenue  avec  une  exacti- 
tude connue  et  applaudie  de  toute  I'Europe."  It  would  be  unneces- 
sary for  His  Majesty  to  give  new  orders  for  the  care  of  neutral  navi- 
gation over  and  above  the  OTdinar\'  regulations  in  force,  since  the 
Empress  had  declared  for  a  system  which  His  Majesty  maintained  at 
the  price  of  his  people's  blood,  and   had  demanded   those  very  laws 

iReply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia 
concerning  neutral  commerce,  dated  Feb.  28,  1780,  and  presented  at  the  Court  of 
London,  April  1,  1780,  post,  p.  282. 


WALKER  223 

which  he  would  desire  to  make  the  basis  of  the  maritime  code  of  all 
nations.^ 

The  rules  proposed  by  the  Empress  of  Russia,  declared  His  Catholic 
Majesty,  then  engaged  in  the  blockade  of  Gibraltar,  were  those  which 
had  always  guided  his  conduct,  and  which  he  as  a  neutral  had  tried  by 
all  means  possible,  but  without  effect,  to  induce  England  to  adopt,  and 
which  only  the  conduct  of  that  Power  had  compelled  him  as  a  bel- 
ligerent to  depart  from  in  self-defense. - 

Nor  were  other  Powers  wanting  to  swell  the  chorus  of  applause. 
Denmark^  and  Sweden,*  who  had  been  the  first  to  agitate  for  the  for- 
mation of  an  armed  neutral  league,  Prussia,^ — whose  ruler  was  now 
animated  by  the  most  inveterate  hostility  towards  England, — Austria^ 
and  the  Empire,^  the  Two  Sicilies^  and  PortugaP  acceded  to  the  armed 
neutrality.  It  was  in  vain  that  Great  Britain  appealed  to  the  faith 
of  treaties  and  to  the  history  of  the  past.^°  Her  utmost  efforts  hardly 
sufficed  to  restrain  the  Empress  from  active  furtherance  of  her  prin- 
ciples. 

The  Dutch,  too,  between  whom  and  the  English  a  rupture  had  been 
swiftly  preparing  in  consequence  of  the  refusal  by  Holland  of  the 
assistance  to  which  she  was  bound  by  treaty  with  England,  and  of  the 
intimate  relations  of  amity  and  commerce  entered  into  between  the 
United  Provinces  and  the  revolted  American  colonies,^^  hastened 
to  secure  admittance  into  the  neutral  league.^-  It  seemed  as  though 
the  whole  civilized  world  were  rising  against  the  maritime  supremacy 
of  England.     But  England  was  not  slow  to  accept  the  challenge.   Four 


^Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia, 
April  25,  1780,  post,  p.  284. 

2Reply  of  the  Court  of  Spain  to  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia, 
April  18,  1780,  post,  p.  279. 

sjuly  9,  1780.     Post,  p.  299. 

^September  9,  1780.    Post,  p.  322. 

5May  8/19,  1781.  Post,  p.  397.  Sir  James  Harris  to  Viscount  Stormont,  30 
April/11  May,  1781,  Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Maltnesbury, 
vol.  1.  p.  420. 

fil784-5,  Martens,  Recueil,  vol.  2,  p.  620. 

■^October  9,  1781.    Post,  p.  403. 

spebruary  10/21.  1783.     Post,  p.  433. 

9july  13/24,  1782.     Post,  p.  420. 

io"Treaties  can  be  changed  only  by  mutual  agreement  of  the  contracting  Par- 
ties, and  as  long  as  they  are  in  force,  they  are  equally  binding  upon  both."  Reply 
of  the  Court  of  Lx)ndon  to  the  declaration  of  the  King  of  Sweden,  post,  p.  317. 

''■^Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.  1,  pp.  341,  380; 
t>ost,  p.  277. 

i2December  24,  1780/January  4,  1781.     Post,  p.  346. 


224  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

days  before^  the  acceptance  of  the  accession  of  Holland  to  the  armed 
neutrality  the  British  had,  to  the  astonishment  of  Rtissia  and  the  no 
small  rage  of  Frederick,-  declared  war  against  the  United  Provinces, 
and  the  Dutch,  struggling  in  vain  to  enlist  the  active  assistance  of  the 
neutral  Powers,  secured  but  a  bare  ofifer  of  mediation,  and  were 
obliged  to  bear  the  full  brtmt  of  an  unsuccessful  war.^ 

The  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  had  not  been  sanctified  by 
the  practice  of  the  parties  to  it  in  days  before  their  trading  profits 
were  bound  up  with  the  interests  of  the  neutral  tiag,  and  were  violated 
by  those  same  parties  when  first  they  exchanged  their  neutral  charac- 
ter for  that  of  belligerents.  So  far  were  France  and  Spain  from 
adopting  before  1780  the  principle  "free  ships,  free  goods"  that  they 
regularly  asserted  the  principles  of  "enemy  ships,  enemy  goods."  and 
"enemy  goods,  enemy  ships,"  principles  now  kept  carefully  in  the 
background.  Up  to  the  very  moment  of  the  presentation  of  the  im- 
perial declaration  Spain  followed  the  stricter  practice  with  such  sever- 
ity as  well-nigh  drove  Russia  in  self-defence  into  the  arms  of  Eng- 
land.* Russia  herself  had  during  her  recent  Turkish  war  confiscated 
Turkish  property  wherever  found,  and  the  only  prize  she  made  was, 
as  her  Admiral  honestly  confessed,  of  such  property  captured  under 
the  neutral  flag.^  And  in  their  war  of  1788  Russia  and  Sweden  alike 
renounced  the  principles  which  they  had  publicly  declared  for  but 
eight  short  years  before.® 

After  the  movement  of  1778-80,  indeed,  the  combined  rules  "free 
ships,  free  goods ;  enemy  ships,  enemy  goods"'  advanced  in  favor,  and 
were  embodied  in  numerous  treaties,  France  now  taking  the  lead  in 
their  support.^  But  there  was  still  no  perfect  consistency  in  the  en- 
gagements of  the  several  Powers;  sometimes  the  principle  "free  ships. 


^December  20,  1780.     Post,  p.  334. 

2"Puisque  les  Anglais  veulent  la  guerre  avec  tout  le  monde,  lis  I'auront,"  cried 
Frederick  when  he  heard  of  the  English  declaration.  Mr.  Elliott  to  Viscount 
Stormont,  Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.  1,  p.  383. 

^Ibid.,  385;  Martens,  Rcciieil,  vol.  4,  pp.  389  ct  seq. 

*Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.   1,  pp.  278-279. 

•"■'Sir  James  Harris  to  Viscount  Stormont,  15/26  May,  1780,  Diaries  and  Cor- 
respondence of  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.   1,   p.   306. 

"Cf.  Martens,  Rccueil,  vol.  6,  p.  210. 

^Treaties  of  France  and  U.  S.  1778,  France  and  Mecklenburg  1779,  Holland 
and  U.  S.  1782,  Sweden  and  U.  S.  1783,  France  and  Great  Britain  1786,  France 
and  U.  S.  1800.  Martens,  Rccueil,  vol.  1,  p.  695;  2,  pp.  41,  255,  332,  693;  7,  pp. 
56  and  490;   Chalmers,   Treaties,  vol.   1,  p.  530. 


WALKER  225 

free  goods"  was  adopted  without  the  companion  jingle;^  sometimes  a 
different  rule  was  followed  by  the  same  Power  at  the  same  period 
with  different  States,  or  even  with  the  same  State  at  different  periods. - 
In  the  main,  however,  the  principle  of  the  freedom  of  the  neutral  flag 
seemed  well  on  the  way  to  general  acceptance,  when  a  new  phase  was 
entered  upon  in  the  outbreak  of  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution. 
The  passions  of  the  combatants  in  that  great  struggle  were  aroused  too 
fiercely  for  any  improved  regard  of  neutral  rights.  France  in  declar- 
ing good  prize  the  goods  of  an  enemy  found  under  the  neutral  flag^ 
was  the  first  to  repudiate  her  recently  formed  engagements,  and  Rus- 
sia herself  abandoned  the  high  moral  notions  of  which  she  had  been 
the  fervent  preacher,  to  adopt  with  England  "the  principle  generally 
recognized  and  the  precepts  of  the  law  of  nations,"  *  to  wit,  that  old 
rule  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  which  her  ally  had  so  long  and  so  con- 
sistently maintained.  Nor  were  the  rest  of  the  parties  to  the  armed 
neutrality  slow  to  follow  this  suggestive  example.^  The  United  States 
remained,  and  for  obvious  reasons,  the  only  consistent  supporter  of 
the  privilege  of  the  neutral  carrier.*' 

But  the  dav  of  "free  ships,  free  goods"  was  not  yet  over.  In  the 
first  few  months  of  the  year  1800  A.  D.  the  northern  Powers  again 
drew  together  in  the  second  armed  neutrality.^  Arising  immiediately 
in  the  resentment  of  the  mad  Emperor  Paul  at  the  conduct  of  Great 
Britain  in  retaining  the  island  of  Malta  in  contravention  of  w^hat  he 
conceived  to  be  his   rights  as  Grand   Master  of  the   Knights  of   St. 


iTreaties  of  France  and  Holland  1785,  Prussia  and  U.  S.  1785,  France  and 
Hamburg  1789,  U.  S.  and  Spain  1795,  U.  S.  and  Tripoli  1796,  Russia  and  Por- 
tugal 1798.  Martens,  Rccueil,  vol.  2.  pp.  571,  616;  3,  p.  159;  6,  p.  574;  7,  pp. 
147  and  267. 

2Treaty  of  U.  S.  and  Great  Britain,  1795.     Martens,  Recueil.  vol.  6,  p.  368. 

3See  the  Decrees  of  the  National  Convention  of  May  9  and  July  17,  1793.  and 
the  Arrete  of  the  Executive  Directory  of  March  2,  1797,  Martens,  Recueil, 
vol.  6,  pp.  757-9  and  769. 

The  Law  of  Jan.  18,  1798,  laid  down  the  principle  that  "L'etat  d'un  navire, 
en  ce  qui  concerne  la  qualite  de  neutre  ou  d'ennemi,  est  determine  par  sa 
cargaison."  All  vessels  carrying  English  goods  were  accordingly  declared  good 
prize.     Martens,   Recueil,  vol.   6,   pp.   774-5. 

^Treaty  of  Great  Britain  and  Russia  1797,  Article  10,  post,  p.  445 ;  see  Mar- 
tens, Recueil,  vol.  5,  pp.   109,   115. 

^Treaties  of  Great  Britain  and  Spain,  Great  Britain  and  Prussia,  Great  Britam 
and  the  Empire  1793,  ibid.,  pp.  l50.  168,  170. 

^Treaties  of  U.  S.  and  Spain  1795.  U.  S.  and  Prussia  1789,  U.  S.  and  France 
1800.     Martens,  Rccueil,  vol.  6,  pp.  154  and  676;  7,  p.  103. 

"^Traites  et  autres  actes  relatifs  a  la  nouvelle  association  tnaritime.  Martens, 
Supplement,  vol.  2,  pp.   344-475. 


226  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

John/  its  more  public  occasion  was  the  recent  irritation  caused  in  the 
North  by  the  attitude  of  England  on  the  subject  of  the  protection 
afforded  by  neutral  convoy.^ 

Early  in  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  Sweden  and  Den- 
mark had  attempted  to  set  up  as  a  neutral  right  the  immunity  from 
belligerent  search  of  merchantmen  sailing  under  the  convoy  of  a  neu- 
tral man-of-war.^  The  question,  however,  became  of  more  pressing 
importance  in  the  last  decade  of  the  century,  when  the  number  of  such 
convoys  was  largely  increased  in  consequence  of  the  action  of  the 
combatants  in  the  French  revolutionary  struggle,  and  more  especially 
after  the  issue  of  the  French  decrees  denouncing  the  penalty  of  con- 
fiscation against  the  neutral  ship-owner  who  should  engage  in  carrying 
English  goods,  and  the  pirate's  death  to  the  neutral  seaman  who  should 
venture  to  sign  articles  in  the  English  service.*  Then  the  irritation 
of  the  disputants  rose  to  fever  heat  in  consequence  of  a  succession  ol 
exciting  incidents. 

In  1798  a  Swedish  convoy  was  after  some  slight  display  of  force  in 
the  British  Channel  brought  in  for  adjudication  in  the  British  Prize 
Court,  and  condemned  by  Sir  William  Scott  on  the  ground  of  resist- 
ance.^ 

In  December,  1799,  occurred  a  more  spirited  affair  in  the  straits  oi 
Gibraltar  between  the  English  squadron  of  obser\'ation  and  a  Danish 
convoy,  the  Danish  commander,  in  pursuance  of  his  instructions,  firing 
on  the  boats  of  the  English  search  party.  Mr.  Merry,  the  Charge 
d' Affaires  at  Copenhagen,  immediately  demanded  an  explanation  and 
disavowal  of  the  action  of  the  Danish  captain.**  Count  Bemstorff, 
however,  far  from  complying  with  the  demand,  sought  to  justify  the 
conduct  of  the  officer,  coupling  with  a  denial  of  the  right  of  belliger- 
ents to  search  merchantmen  under  convoy  an  answering  demand  for 
reparation.^ 

The  dispute  was  still  unsettled  when  on  July  25,  1800,  the  Danish 


^Post,  p.  516. 

^Manning,  Law  of  Nations,  bk.  5,  ch.  11. 

•"^The  principle  was  adopted  in  the  following  treaties:  United  States  and 
Prussia,  1785,  France  and  Russia,  1786-7,  Two  Sicilies  and  Russia,  1787,  Por- 
tugal and  Russia,  1787  and  1798,  United  States  and  France,  1800.  Martens, 
Recucil,  vol.  2,  p.  572;  3,  pp.  17,  45,  119;  7,  pp.  266,  493. 

^Arrete  of  the  Executive  Directory  of  Oct.  29,  1798. 

•■The  Maria,  1  C.  Rob.  340. 

6Mr.  Merry  to  Count  Bernstorff,  April  10.  1800.  post.  p.  471. 

^Count  Bernstorff  to  Mr.  Merry,  April  19,  1800,  post,  p.  474. 


WALKER  227 

and  British  navies  again  came  into  hostile  colHsion,  and  Captain 
Krabbe  of  the  Freya,  a  Danish  frigate  convoying  six  merchantmen, 
having  refused  to  permit  the  search  of  his  charge  in  the  British  Chan- 
nel, was,  after  a  smart  action  with  a  British  squadron,  brought  in  with 
the  convoy  to  the  Downs.^  The  Danish  Government  in  their  turn  de- 
manded prompt  satisfaction  for  this  most  public  insult  to  their  neutral 
national  flag,  and  an  immediate  restitution  of  the  captured  vessels. 
But  Great  Britain  showed  no  sign  of  a  willingness  tO'  yield.  Lord 
Whitworth  was  instantly  despatched  on  a  special  mission  to  Copen- 
hagen, but  a  British  fleet  entered  the  Sound  to  lend  weight  to  his  rep- 
resentations. A  lively  passage  at  arms  ensued,^  Great  Britain  defend- 
ing the  action  of  her  officers  as  grounded  in  the  plainest  principles  of 
the  law  of  nations,  whilst  Count  Bernstorff  treated  the  capture  of  the 
convoy  as  an  altogether  unwarranted  invasion  of  neutral  rights. 
Finally,  hov/ever.  the  negotiators  agreed  on  August  29,  1800,  upon  a 
convention  for  the  temporary  settlement  of  the  contested  question.^ 
But  a  new  and  more  formidable  disputant  was  already  in  the  field.  On 
August  15,  1800,  the  Emperor  Paul,  to  whom  the  Danish  Government 
had  made  early  approaches,  issued  a  declaration  wherein,  reciting  the 
history  of  the  recent  action  of  the  English  with  regard  to  neutral  con- 
voys, he  invited  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Prussia  to  concur  with  him 
in  measures  for  the  establishment  in  full  force  of  the  principles  of 
the  armed  neutrality.^  Nor  did  Paul  content  himself  with  empty 
words.  Apprised  of  the  appearance  of  the  English  squadron  in  the 
Sound,  he  ordered  the  sequestration  of  all  English  property  within 
his  dominions.  The  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  signature,  on  the  very 
day  (Aug  29)  of  the  issue  of  his  edict,  of  the  Anglo-Danish  conven- 
tion momentarily  disconcerted  his  plans,  but,  a  new  source  of  irrita- 
tion against  England  being  inopportunely  supplied  by  the  non-fulfil- 
ment of  his  singular  Maltese  dreams,  he  started  afresh  on  his  career 
of  violence.  An  embargo  was  laid  on  British  shipping  in  Russian 
ports,  and,  when  tAvo  British  vessels  made  their  escape  by  force  from 
their  anchorage  in  the  oort  of  Narva,  a  third  which  remained  was 
committed  to  the  flames.  Nor  were  other  Powers  wanting  to  excite 
to  frenzy  a  brain  but  too  palpably  disordered.     Spain  lent  fuel  to  the 

iCount    de    Wedel-Jarlsberg   to    Lord    Grenville,    July   29,    1800,    post,   p.   476. 
Memoirs  and  Correspondence  of  the  Marques  Wellesley,  vol.  2,  p.  116. 
^Post,  pp.  482-489. 
^Post,  p.  492. 
^August  27,  1800,  new  style.    Post,  p.  489. 


228  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

conflagration  by  complaining  of  the  irregular  impressment  by  an  Eng- 
lish squadron  of  a  Swedish  galliot  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  out  a 
couple  of  Spanish  frigates  in  the  harbour  of  Barcelona/  and  Prussia 
supported  her  in  an  extraordinary  and  altogether  unjustifiable  demand 
upon  Sweden  for  the  release  of  the  captured  vessels.  It  was  a  singu- 
lar view  of  neutral  rights  which  was  expounded  by  these  strange 
allies:  Spain  excluded  all  Swedish  vessels  from  her  ports  by  way  ot 
reprisal  for  the  refusal  of  Sweden  to  be  hurried  into  forcible  measures 
against  England,-  and  Prussian  troops  entered  the  ports  of  the  neutral 
city  of  Hamburg  because  an  Embden  contraband  trader  captured  by 
the  English  had  been  driven  by  stress  of  Aveather  into  the  sheltering 
harbour  of  Cuxhaven.^ 

But  of  little  avail  with  the  Powers  of  the  North  were  arguments 
merely  verbal. 

In  December,  1800,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Prussia  united  w^ith  Rus- 
sia in  the  second  armed  neutrality. 

The  guiding  principles  of  the  new  league  were  set  out  in  the  main 
in  five  articles,  which  added  to  the  fonr  rules  of  1780  a  fifth  dealing 
with  the  subject  of  convoy.* 

Denmark,  taken  to  task  by  Great  Britain  in  respect  of  her  accession 
to  a  combination  for  the  support  of  principles  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  spirit  of  the  convention  but  just  concluded,  unhesitatingly 
avowed  her  adhesion  to  the  northern  alliance,  and  called  upon  her 
questioner  to  admit  "Que  I'abandon  provisoire  et  momentane,  non  d'un 
principe,  dont  la  question  est  restee  indecise,  mais  d'une  mesure,  dont 
le  droit  n'a  jamais  ete,  ni  ne  sgauroit  jamais  etre  conteste,  ne  se 
trouve  nullement  en  opposition  avec  les  principes  generaux  et  per- 
manens,  relativement  auxquels  les  puissances  du  Nord  sont  sur  le 
ix)int  de  retablir  un  concert,  qui  loin  de  pouvoir  compromettre  leur 
neutralite,  n'est  destine  qu'a  la  raffermir."  ^ 

But  Great  Britain,  now  more  free  than  in  1780  to  deal  with  the  self- 
constituted   prophets   of  neutral   right,    was   in  no  humor  to   stomach 


'Ortolan,  Diplomatie  de  la  mcr,  vol.  2,  bk.  3,  ch.  1,  pp.  30-31.  and  Pieces  justi- 
ficatiz'es  B. 

-See  the  correspondence  between  the  Spanish  and  Swedish  Governments, 
l^ost,  pp.  507-.S12,  553. 

^Post,  pp.  513-519;  Martens,  Recucil,  vol.  7,  p.  164. 

4Sce  conventions  between  Russia  and  Sweden,  Russia  and  Denmark  and 
Russia  and  Prussia  (December.  1800),  post,  pp.  531-549. 

^Count  Bernstorff  to  Mr.  Drummond,  December  31.  1800,  post.  p.  554. 


WEHBERG  229 

either  the  veiled  hostility  of  Bernstorff  or  the  overweening  insolence^ 
of  Haugwitz.  A  war  of  emhargoes  speedily  led  on  to  open  rupture. 
Parker  and  Nelson  forced  the  passage  of  the  Sound,  and  crushed  the 
Danish  naval  power  in  the  bloody  battle  of  Copenhagen;^  the  Danish 
and  Swedish  possessions  in  the  West  Indies  surrendered  in  quick  suc- 
cession to  Duckworth  and  Trigge  f  and  British  troops  occupied  with- 
out a  show  of  resistance  Serampore  and  Tranquebar.*  Humbled  at 
home  and  stripped  of  all  their  foreign  dominions,  the  Danes  were  in 
no  condition  to  prolong  an  unequal  struggle,  and  the  cruel  murder  of 
PauP  opened  a  speedy  way  to  the  accommodation  of  dififerences. 
Early  in  June,  1801,  a  maritime  convention*^  was  signed  at  St.  Peters- 
burg between  the  Ministers  of  George  III  and  the  new  Emperor 
Alexander.  The  treaty  may  be  regarded  as  a  compromise.  Great 
Britain,  confirming  the  definition  of  contraband  set  out  in  her  last 
treaty  of  commerce  with  Russia,  agreed  expressly  to  adopt  three  prin- 
ciples of  the  armed  neutrality  which  she  had  not  hitherto  contested. 
She  admitted  the  right  of  neutrals  to  navigate  freely  between  the 
ports  and  on  the  coasts  of  nations  at  war,  she  acknowledged  that 
blockade  to  be  binding  must  be  efifective,  and  she  assented  to  the  neces- 
sity for  the  administration  by  belligerents  in  their  dealings  with  neu- 
trals of  speedy  and  uniform  justice.  But  she  vindicated  against  the 
neutral  Powers  the  right  of  search  of  merchantmen  under  convoy  as 
exercised  by  men-of-war ,  and  established  the  liability  to  seizure  by  a 
hostile  captor  of  goods  being  actually  the  property  of  the  subject  of 
a  belligerent  laden  under  the  neutral  flag.^ 


WEHBERG:    Das  Seekriegsrecht  (Article  in  Handbuch  des  Vdlker- 
rechts,  ed.  Stier-Somlo,  volume  4,  Berlin,  1915). 

Hans   Wehberg.     Contemporary  German  publicist;   born   in    1885;   doctor   of 
laws ;   Gerichtsassessor   at   Diisseldorf ;    formerly  associate   editor  of   the   Zeit- 

iCount  Haugwitz  to  Lord  Carvsfort,  February  12,  1801,  post,  p.  578. 

2ApriI  2,   1801. 

^Martens,  Supplement,  vol.  2,  p.  466. 

*Memoirs  and  Correspondence  of  the  Marques  JVellcsley,  vol.  2,  ch.  5. 

^Diaries  and  Correspondence  of  the  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  vol.  4,  pp.  54-56. 

^Post,  p.  595. 

"See  Article  3,  post,  p.  597. 


230  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

schrift  fur  Volkcrrccht.    He  graduated  from  the  Gymnasium  of  Dusseldorf  and 
attended  the  universities  of  Jena,  Gottingen  and  Bonn. 

Dr.  Wehberg  has  written  extensively  upon  subjects  dealing  with  international 
law,  such  as :  Das  problem  dues  internationalen  staatengcrichtshofes,  1912,  and 
Da^  beuterecht  im  land-  und  seekriegc,  1909,  both  of  which  have  also  appeared 
in  English. 


Page  2p. — England's  struggle  against  the  American  colonies  had 
begun  in  1776  in  consequence  of  the  American  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. In  1778  France,  and  in  1779  Spain,  took  sides  with  the 
"thirteen  united  colonies." 

Ere  long,  the  United  States  of  America  and  France  declared  that 
with  the  exception  of  contraband,  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships 
should  be  free.  This  action  was  most  surprising  on  the  part  of 
France,  because  the  earlier  ordinances  had  decreed  the  contrary.  But 
this  generous  action  which  France  sustains  later  on,  is  explainable  by 
virtue  of  the  necessary  consideration  that  had  to  be  shown  the  neu- 
trals whose  good-will  France  did  not  wish  to  lose  in  the  course  of  her 
great  war  with  England.^  With  regard  to  the  matter  of  contraband, 
France  and  the  United  States  were  likewise  disposed  to  a  generous 
attitude.  On  the  other  hand,  England  and  Spain  gave  the  widest  in- 
terpretation to  the  idea  of  contraband  and  applied  the  right  of  block- 
ade and  the  prize  law  in  the  most  rigorous  fashion.  While  hitherto, 
in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Consolato  del 
Mare,  England  had  seized  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships,  and  on  the 
other  hand,  had  spared  neutral  property  on  enemy  ships,  she  like 
Spain  now  accepted  the  principle  that  neutral  goods  on  enemy  ships 
might  be  seized.-  The  English  prize  courts  furthermore  regarded  the 
French  and  Spanish  ports  as  blockaded,  merely  by  reason  of  the 
situation  of  England.  They  applied  the  droit  de  prevention,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  neutral  ships  which  were  making  for  a  port  which 
had  been  declared  blockaded,  could  at  any  distance  from  such  port  be 
seized  on  the  ground  of  breach  of  blockade ;  and  furthermore,  they 
were  in  favor  of  the  droit  de  suite,  in  consequence  of  which  ships  suc- 

^See  Strupp,  Urkunden,  vol.  1,  p.  71.  where  the  French  regulation  of  July  26, 
1778,  is  reprinted,  and  also  de  Boeck,  Dc  la  propricte  privee  ennetnie,  pp.  58, 
et  seq.;  Fauchille,  La  diplomaiie  frauQaise,  pp.  59  ct  scq.;  also  the  ordinance 
of  the  King  of  France  of  June  24,  1778  relative  to  privateering  and  reported 
in  Strupp,  vol.  1,  pp.  68  et  seq.  This  ordinance  renewed  the  harsh  prescriptions 
of  the  ordinance  of  1681.     Fauchille,  p.  68. 

^Fauchille,  pp.  2  et  seq. 


WEHBERG  231 

cessfully  running  the  blockade  could  be  seized  up  to  the  moment  of 
their  arrival  at  the  port  to  which  they  were  bound. 

In  view  of  the  interference  with  neutral  commerce  which  had  taken 
place,  Russia,  Sweden  and  Denmark  united  in  1779  for  the  purpose 
of  neutralizing  the  maritime  course  along  the  North  Sea,  that  is  to 
say,  they  sought  by  the  stationing  of  war-ships,  to  prevent  interfer- 
ence with  the  merchant  ships  of  the  allied  States  along  the  eastern 
coast  of  the  North  Sea.  The  said  States  had  already  reached  a 
similar  agreement  in  1758-1760,^  as  has  been  shown  by  Bergbohm.^ 
The  neutralization  of  the  North  Sea  was  the  preliminary  act  for  the 
first  armed  neutrality  to  which  reference  will  be  made  hereinafter. 
For  with  the  beginning  of  the  negotiations  which  led  to  the  neutraliza- 
tion of  the  North  Sea,  those  principles  had  already  been  set  forth  by 
the  Danish  Minister,  Count  Bernstorff,  and  by  the  emphasis  laid 
upon  these  principles,  the  armed  neutrality  has  become  a  great  event. 
It  is,  however,  incorrect  to  say,  as  has  been  said  by  GefTcken,^  by 
Bergbohm*  and  by  Niemeyer^  that  Bernstorff  is  for  that  reason  the 
spiritual  originator  of  the  armed  neutrality.  For  in  his  thorough 
searches,  Fauchille''  has  shown  that  even  before  Bernstorff,  the  French 
Minister,  Vergennes,  had  suggested  to  Russia  the  formation  of  an 
armed  neutrality.  It  may  be  added  that  the  alliance  of  the  Powers 
in  the  year  1779  for  the  neutralization  of  the  North  Sea  led  to  no 
direct  results.  Only  unimportant  conferences  between  them  took 
place. 

Since  the  moment  when  France  had  taken  sides  with  the  United 
States,  England  had  left  no  stone  unturned  to  win  Russia  over  to  her 
side.  In  the  course  of  the  war,  England  even  refrained,  whenever 
the  opportunity  arose,  from  searching  Russian  ships,  though  they 
might  have  had  enemy  goods  on  board.  The  English  Ambassador, 
Sir  James  Harris,  endeavored  to  his  utmost,  to  win  Russia  over  to 
the  side  of  his  country.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Catherine  II  enter- 
tained much  sympathy  for  England^  it  looked  as  though  these  efforts 


iBergbohm,  Die  bewaffnete  ncutralitdt,  p.  48;  Poels,  Darstellung  des  gemeinen 
deutschen,  vol.  3,  p.  1207;  v.  Prittwitz  und  Gaffron,  p.  24. 

-Op.  cit.,  p.  104. 

^Extracts  on  Seckriegsrecht  and  Neutralitdt  in  Handbuch  des  Volkerrechts, 
Hamburg,  1859,  vol.  4,  p.  622. 

*0p.  cit.,  p.  84. 

^Urkundenbuch,  p.   1. 

60/).  cit..  p.  209. 

^Fauchille,  pp.  20,  60. 


232  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

might  not  remain  fruitless.  For  political  reasons,  however.  Count 
Panin,  the  Russian  Chancellor,  did  not  regard  military  aid  to  England 
as  opportune,  and  he  exerted  all  his  influence  to  keep  the  Empress 
from  entering  into  the  planned  alliance.  France  also  left  no  stone 
unturned  to  induce  Russia  to  remain  neutral.^  In  spite  of  this,  and 
after  many  failures,  the  English  Ambassador  seemed  nevertheless 
near  success  by  the  beginning  of  the  year  1780.  The  Spaniards  had 
captured  Russian  ships  at  two  different  times  (in  the  opinion  of  the 
neutrals  these  had  been  unlawful  seizures).  The  moment  seemed 
favorable  for  England.  In  February,  1780,  Catherine  II  ordered  a 
fleet  of  fifteen  ships  mobilized.  Through  a  complication  of  diplo- 
matic incidents,  this  plan  of  fitting  out  ships  to  ward  off  Spanish  at- 
tacks, was  however  changed  in  such  a  manner  that  the  effect  of  it 
rebounded  against  England.-  On  February  28,  1780,  Russia  for- 
warded a  declaration  to  the  Courts  of  London.  Versailles  and  Madrid, 
which,  according  to  the  most  recent  researches  of  Fauchille,  had  been 
prepared  in  cooperation  between  the  French  and  Russian  diplomatists, 
and  finally  carried  out  by  Empress  Catherine  herself.  The  declara- 
tion was  not  forwarded  to  Washington  for  the  reason  that  the  colo- 
nies were  regarded  as  renegade  rebels.^ 

In  the  famous  declaration*  the  Empress  of  Russia  complained  in 
regard  to  the  losses  occasioned  to  neutral  navigation  and  declared  that 
it  was  her  earnest  intention  to  prevent  these  thenceforth.  She  de- 
manded that  the  following  principles  should  be  respected  as  funda- 
mentals in  the  law  of  nations : 

1.  That  neutral  ships  may  freely  sail  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  belligerent  States  f 


^Fauchille,  pp.  58-66. 

-Bergbohm,  pp.  224  ct  scq.;  Fauchille,  pp.  348  ct  scq.:  v.  Prittwitz  und 
GafFron,   pp.  21    et   seq. 

^  The  Congress  of  the  American  Confederate  States  had,  moreover,  soon 
thereafter  instructed  the  admiralty^  to  act  in  conformity  with  the  basic  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  declaration  of  the  Empress.  See  Albrecht's  "Die  Stellung 
der  Vereinigten  Staaten  zur  bewaffneten  Neutralit'dt,"  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  I'olker- 
recht,  vol.  6,  pp.  436  et  seq. 

*Post,  p.  273. 

^'Navigation  betv/een  the  ports  of  the  same  country  are  reserved  to  the 
national  ship  companies.  During  war  time,  this  right  of  the  so-called  coastwise 
shipping  was,  however,  granted  to  the  neutrals.  Various  ordinances  had  been 
issued  l)y  which  certain  States  forbade  this  freight  shipping  to  the  neutrals  and 
penalizing  them  through  the  confiscation  of  both  the  ship  and  the  cargo.  But  at 
the  time  of  the  American  War  of  Independence,  this  matter  had  not  become  a 
problem  of  actuality,  and  special  reasons  were  therefore  lacking  for  incor- 
porating   this    point    in    the    declaration. 


WEHBERG  233 

2.  That  goods  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  belligerent  Powers 
and  placed  on  board  neutral  ships  should  be  free  ;^ 

3.  That  in  the  matter  of  contraband,  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  com- 
mercial treaty  between  Russia  and  England  of  1766  should  be  authori- 
tative and  extended  to  all  belligerent  States  f 

4.  That  a  port  should  be  regarded  as  blockaded  only  if  by  reason 
of  measures  taken  by  the  attacking  Power,  that  is,  by  means  of  sta- 
tionary ships  in  sufficiently  close  proximity  with  each  other,  there  is 
evident  danger  in  entering  such  port ; 

5.  That  these  principles  should  be  applied  in  the  procedures  and 
decisions  appertaining  to  the  legality  of  the  prizes. 

The  declaration  contained  the  further  statement  that  in  order  to 
defend  the  principles  of  the  declaration,  a  part  of  the  Russian  fleet  was 
held  ready  to  sail  out. 

The  answers  of  the  belligerent  Powers  were  of  different  tenor. 
England  declared  that  she  could  not  renounce  her  principle,  according 
to  which  she  would  capture  enemy  goods  even  on  neutral  ships,  but 
that  as  theretofore,  she  would  continue  even  now  to  show  particular 
respect  for  the  Russian  flag.  France  replied  that  from  time  imme- 
morial she  had  followed  the  principles  expressed  in  the  declaration. 
Spain  stressed  the  statement  that  she  could  not  declare  enemy  mer- 
chandise on  neutral  ships  exempt  from  capture  till  England  herself 
had  accepted  the  like  principle,  and  that  she  would  gladly  accept  the 
remaining  principles  contained  in  the  declaration.  Spain  added  to  her 
answer  that  in  regard  to  the  most  recent  incidents  which  had  led  to 
the  action  of  Russia,  she  denied  all  guilt  in  relation  thereto  and  laid 
such  guilt  to  the  seafaring  merchants  who  sought  to  make  profit  and 
in  so  doing  were  lending  assistance  to  the  enemy.  It  can  not  there- 
fore be  said  that  the  result  of  the  Russian  declaration  was  of  great 
importance.  But  in  spite  of  this.  Count  Panin,  the  Russian  Minister, 
stated  that  he  was  quite  satisfied. 

In  the  same  ukase  by  which  Empress  Catherine  had  ordered  the  for- 
warding of  the  circular  note  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  she  had  also 


^The  declaration  made  no  reference  to  the  treatment  of  neutral  goods  on 
board  enemy  ships,  and  which  were  subject  to  seizure  in  accordance  with  the 
treaty  of  Utrecht.  "This  was  the  first  time  that  these  two  propositions  which 
hitherto  had  usually  been  joined  were  no  longer  found  side  by  side,"  says  Kleen, 
Lois  et  usages,  vol.  1,  p.  22.  He  adds  that  in  all  probability  it  had  been  the 
intention  to  renew  the  principle  "unfree  ship,  unfree  goods"  of  the  treaty  of 
Utrecht. 

2That  is  to  say,  only  immediate  necessaries  of  war  should  be  treated  as 
contraband. 


234  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

directed  that  the  project  for  a  formal  treaty  with  the  neutral  Powers 
in  defense  of  maritime  trade  should  be  laid  before  her.  Soon  there- 
after, negotiations  with  Denmark,  Sweden,  Holland  and  Portugal  were 
started.  The  Danish  Minister,  Count  Bernstorff,  was  highly  dis- 
pleased that  the  convention  was  to  be  extended  to  all  neutral  Powers. 
He  was  much  more  in  favor  of  an  alliance  between  Russia  and  Den- 
mark alone.  But  he  submitted  in  the  end.  In  a  declaration  to  the 
Courts  of  London.  Versailles  and  Madrid,  Denmark  declared  she 
would  likewise  have  the  principles  enunciated  by  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment observed  by  her  war  fleet.  A  similar  declaration  was  issued 
by  Sweden  after  she  had  become  convinced  of  the  sincerity  of  the 
Russian  Government.  The  answers  of  the  belligerent  Powers  were  anal- 
ogous to  the  earlier  ones.  At  the  same  time  negotiations  were  opened 
on  the  part  of  Russia  on  the  one  side,  and  of  Sweden  and  Denmark 
on  the  other,  in  reference  to  a  formal  treaty,  and  these  negotiations 
led  to  two  conventions,  the  one  of  June  28/ July  9,  1780,  between 
Russia  and  Denmark,  and  the  other  of  July  21 /August  1,  1780,  be- 
tween Russia  and  Sweden.  But  since  these  two  conventions  were  of 
essentially  the  same  tenor,  they  may  be  regarded  as  a  single  agree- 
ment to  which  has  been  given  the  name  of  the  Russo-Dano-Swedish 
treaty  of  alliance  of  the  year  1780  for  the  protection  of  neutral  com- 
merce and  navigation.  In  this  alliance  it  was  precisely  defined  how  the 
war-ships  of  the  contracting  Parties  were  in  common  to  protect  the 
commerce  of  their  subjects.  The  other  neutral  States  were  invited 
to  join  the  alliance.  Holland,  who  during  the  American  War  of  In- 
dependence had  by  all  means  endeavored  to  induce  England  to  accept 
the  right  of  convoy,^  joined  the  alliance  only  in  the  month  of  January, 
1781.  Before  her  accession  to  the  alliance  had  been  notified  to  the 
belligerent  Powers  England  had  already  declared  war  against  the 
States  General,  so  that  Holland  as  a  belligerent  State  could  no  longer 
be  a  member  of  a  union  of  neutral  Powers.  On  May  8/May  19,  1781, 
Prussia  likewise  joined  the  alliance.^  The  acceptance  by  Frederick 
the  Great  of  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  was  the  more 
obvious  because  with  reference  to  the  prize  law  he  had  repeatedly 
proposed  even  farther-reaching  principles.  Already  in  the  instructions 
issued  to  privateers  in  the  course  of  the  Seven  Years'  War  we  meet 
with  the  principle  "free  ship,   free  goods,  unfree  ships,  free  goods," 


^Mirbach,  Durchsnchungsrecht,  p.  75. 

2Krauel,  Prcussen  und  die  bewaffnete  Neutralitdt  von  1780. 


WEHBERG  235 

which  was  subsequently  incorporated  in  the  Paris  declaration  in  refer- 
ence to  maritime  law.  In  the  declaration  of  April  30,  1781,^  this  prin- 
ciple was  again  established.  This  principle  certainly  went  beyond  the 
principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  ;  for  the  latter  would  not  exempt  from 
capture  neutral  goods  found  on  board  enemy  ships. ^  While  Prussia 
contracted  with  all  three  northern  States,  the  treaty  itself  by  which 
Austria  joined  the  armed  neutrality  some  four  months  later  was  con- 
cluded merely  with  Russia.  Portugal  and  the  Two  Sicilies  only  joined 
the  alliance  after  the  hostilities  between  England  and  her  adversaries 
had  ceased.  Nevertheless,  the  international  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality  had  been  accepted  by  no  fewer  than  eight  States.  It  is  worthy 
of  note  that  most  of  the  signatory  States  of  the  armed  neutrality 
issued  thoroughgoing  ordinances  to  their  subjects  by  which  authoriza- 
tions and  inhibitions  were  established  in  reference  to  their  conduct 
in  time  of  war. 

Catherine  II  of  Russia  had  for  some  time  cherished  the  plan  to 
secure  acceptance  of  the  principles  of  the  first  armed  neutrality  even 
beyond  the  time  of  the  war  then  being  waged,  and  had  sought  to  estab- 
lish the  complete  principles  of  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare  in  a  mari- 
time war  code.  Similar  ideas  had  preoccupied  King  Gustavus  III  of 
Sweden  and  Joseph  II  of  Austria.'  Unfortunately,  however,  none 
of  these  plans  was  ever  realized. 

England  had  never  accepted  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality. 
For  a  time  she  had  been  compelled  by  the  unanimous  procedure  of  the 
neutrals  to  conform  to  the  principles  of  the  declaration  of  1780.  Un- 
fortunately, however,  the  originators  of  the  armed  neutrality  did  in 
the  course  of  time  renounce  their  own  principles.  In  spite  of  this,  the 
value  of  this  in  its  kind  important  act  of  the  Powers,  must  not  be 
under-estimated.  At  first  the  idea  that  each  State  should  not  establish 
its  own  law  for  maritime  warfare  was  vigorously  advocated,  that  on 
the  contrary,  the  community  of  interests  demanded  the  acceptance  of 
like  principles.  And  while  the  declaration  of  the  armed  neutrality 
was  incomplete  for  the  reason  that  it  established  only  special  prin- 


^Post,  p.  391. 

2The  Prussian  Government  based  the  principle  whose  acceptance  by  the 
other  nations  it  took  for  granted,  upon  the  fact  that  it  had  already  been  estab- 
lished in  the  Aix-la^Chapelle  peace  of  1748,  which,  however,  was  not  the  case  at 
all.  Later  on  it  based  the  principle  upon  the  general  principles  of  interna- 
tional law,  which  was  likewise  unjustified.  See  Krauel,  Preussen  und  die 
Freiheit  veutraler  Giiter  auf  feindlichen  Schiffen,  pp.  5-10. 

^Bergbohm,  pp.  204  et  seq.;  Fauchille,  pp.  579  et  scq. 


236  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ciples,  yet  these  principles  were  the  more  vigorously  championed  and 
in  a  form  never  before  witnessed.^ 

In  the  first  decade  following  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780-1783, 
the  former  principle  of  the  Consolato  del  Mare,  "free  ship,  unfree 
goods."  has  not  been  incorporated  in  any  treaty.  Of  course,  this  prin- 
ciple still  remained  a  general  principle  of  international  law  in  case 
stipulations  to  the  contrary  had  not  been  agreed  upon.  The  latter 
proved  indeed  the  case  in  many  instances.  England  especially  re- 
nounced capture  of  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships  in  the  Versailles 
treaty  of  peace  with  Spain  and  France.  It  was  also  in  those  days 
when  the  principle  of  the  inviolability  of  private  property  in  maritime 
warfare  advocated  by  Abbot  de  Mably  in  France  found  its  first  prac- 
tical realization  through  the  commercial  treaty  of  September  10, 
1785,-  between  Prussia  and  North  America  by  which  the  contracting 
Parties  renounced  the  law  of  maritime  prizes.^  This  treaty  termi- 
nated in  1796,  and  in  the  subsequent  commercial  treaties  between  the 
two  States  of  1799  and  1828,  the  basic  principle  just  mentioned  was 
not  repeated.*  In  1792,  Deputy  Kersaint  proposed  in  the  French  na- 
tional assembly  the  issuing  of  a  decree  concerning  the  abolition  of  the 
law  of  maritime  captures."'  The  negotiations  which  took  place  with 
other  Governments  by  reason  of  this  proposal,  showed  that  on  the  part 
of  the  great  maritime  Powers  there  was  no  disposition  to  adopt  meas- 
ures of  the  nature  proposed.  Nevertheless,  Austria,  North  America, 
Portugal,  Denmark,  Tuscany,  Genoa  and  Naples  expressed  their  ap- 
proval of  the  proposal.  The  most  favorable  reply  to  the  proposal 
was  received  from  Hamburg,  and  between  this  city  and  France  a 
momentary  agreement  was  reached  with  regard  to  the  abolition  of  the 
law    of    maritime    captures.      Furthermore.    Napoleon    returned    time 


iRergbohm,  p.  215;  Kleen,  vol.  1,  p.  24;  de  Boeck,  p.  59;  Gessner,  p.  4,3. 

^Reprinted  by  Niemeyer,  Urkundcnbuch,  p.  22,  and  by  Strupp,  Urkundcn, 
vol.  1,  pp.  82  ct  seq.;  cf.  Kapp,  Friedrich  der  Grossc  und  die  Vereinigten 
Staaten  von  Amcrika. 

^By  this  treaty,  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods''  was  expressly  agreed  to; 
cf.  Krauel,  op.  cit.,  p.  10. 

•'De  Boeck,  pp.  61  ct  seq.,  states  that  the  treaty  of  1785  had  become  meaningless 
with  regard  to  the  law  of  maritime  captures,  because  a  war  between  the  contract- 
ing Parties  had  not  been  within  the  reach  of  possibility.  For  this  reason  it  had 
been  thought  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  said  principle.  This  statemen*  does  not 
seem  to  meet  the  case.  A  war  between  two  States  was  not  absolutely  impossible, 
and  the  insertion  of  the  mere  principle  was  not  without  favorable  effect.  Cf. 
Gessner,  pp.  48    ct  seq. 

^Niemeyer,  pp.  122  ct  seq.;  de  Boeck.  pp.  62  ct  seq. 


WEHBERG  237 

and  again  to  the  French  traditions  in  this  respect  but  without  reaching 
any  practical  results. 

After  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution,  many  States  united 
against  France.  In  the  course  of  the  wars  that  followed,  French  com- 
merce was  sharply  attacked  and  French  goods  on  neutral  ships  were 
seized.  France  answered  in  kind.  The  signatory  States  of  the  first 
armed  neutrality  trampled  the  latter's  principles  under  foot.  The 
Danish  Minister,  Count  Bernstorff,  alone  persisted  in  his  former 
humane  views.  The  United  States  furthermore  concluded  with  Eng- 
land in  1794  and  with  Prussia  in  1799  a  treaty  by  which  the  principle 
of  the  Consolato  del  Mare  was  reestablished.  Prussia,  of  course,  did 
this  unwillingly.  In  the  general  national  law  of  1794  it  had  expressly 
confirmed  the  principle  "free  ship,  free  goods;  unfree  ship,  free  goods'' 
established  by  its  prize  instructions  of  the  Seven  Years'  War.  But 
the  American  negotiators  would  not  on  their  part  have  the  principle 
"free  ship,  free  goods"  established  in  the  treaty,  for  the  reason  that  it 
had  not  been  agreed  to  by  the  other  nations.^  On  the  other  hand,  the 
attitude  of  Prussia  was  responsible  for  the  view  that  the  principle  "un- 
free ship,  free  goods"  was  not  inserted  at  that  time  in  the  treaty, 
although  the  United  States  was  desirous  to  do  so.  Viewed  from  this 
point,  the  attitude  of  Prussia  has  ever  been  logical  with  regard  to  the 
question  of  the  law  of  maritime  captures.  It  should  still  be  observed 
that  the  treaty  of  1785  set  aside  the  angaria-right  between  the  United 
States  and  Prussia.  Even  this  stipulation  was  with  important  restric- 
tions reincorporated  in  the  new  treaty  of  1799.-  On  the  other  hand, 
the  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  1785  to  the  effect  that  contraband  could 
be  seized  only  through  indemnification,  was  retained. 

The  war  between  England  and  France  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century  developed  more  and  more  into  a  war  of  annihilation  against 
their  mutual  commerce.^*  England  assumed  once  more  her  theory  of 
the  fictitious  blockade;  necessaries  of  life  were  listed  as  contraband 
when  they  were  destined  for  enemy  ports  from  which  the  enemy  could 
reprovision  himself.  The  goods  were  either  confiscated  alone  or — in 
case  they  belonged  to  the  owner  of  the  ship — along  with  the  ship  itself. 


iKrauel,  op.  cit.,  pp.  13-15. 

2Albrecht,  p.  32.  ,        r     i  j 

^Kleen,  op.  cit..  vol.  1.  p.  25,  says:     "The  principles  not  only  of  the  armed 

neutrality,  but   of   almost   all  law  of   neutrality  hitherto   known   and   accepted, 

were  renounced  and  trampled  under  foot."     Cf.  the  thoroughgoing  presentation 

of  this  matter  in  de  Boeck,  pp.  70  et  seq. 


238  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

However,  in  case  the  goods  originated  from  the  country  of  the  ship, 
then  compulsory  sale  of  the  contraband  wares  would  be  satisfactory.^ 
France  replied  to  the  extremely  harsh  edict  that  henceforth,  all  ships 
on  which  English  cargoes  were  found  would  be  confiscated.-  This 
condition  of  things  appeared  untenable  to  the  neutral  nations  only 
when  England  proceeded  to  deny  the  right  of  convoy,  and  when  she 
threatened  to  capture  the  war-ships  that  would  oppose  the  search  of 
vessels  which  they  accompanied.  When  Denmark  contested  this  right 
with  regard  to  England,  there  arose  a  conflict  between  the  two  States 
in  which  Russia  took  a  hand.  The  Russian  Emperor  had  suddenly 
changed  his  tactics  toward  France  and  was  roused  by  the  manner  in 
which  neutral  commerce  was  made  to  suffer  by  England.  He  laid  an 
embargo  upon  English  goods  and  ships  and  on  December  14/16,  1800, 
he  concluded  a  convention^  with  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Prussia, 
whereby  the  principles  of  the  first  armed  neutrality  of  1780-1783  were 
renewed.  In  this  so-called  second  armed  neutrality,  the  right  of  con- 
voy was  expressly  recognized  and  imposed  upon  the  blockading 
Powers  the  obligation  to  inform  neutral  ships  of  the  state  of  block- 
ade. England,  in  January,  1801,  replied  thereto  by  capturing  Russian, 
Danish  and  Swedish  ships.  When  Denmark  attempted  to  do  the  same 
with  regard  to  English  vessels,  she  was  compelled  to  renounce  the 
principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  as  the  result  of  the  battle  in  the 
roadway  of  Copenhagen.  At  the  same  time  a  new  Emperor  had 
ascended  the  throne  in  Russia.  The  new  Emperor  released  the  Eng- 
lish ships  and  with  England  concluded  a  treaty  of  June  5/17,  1801,* 
by  which  the  right  to  capture  enemy  goods  on  neutral  ships  was  ex- 
pressly agreed  to.  With  regard  to  the  effectivity  of  a  blockade,  it  was 
agreed  that  it  would  be  sufficient  if  the  ships  were  stationed  in  the 
port  or  were  close  enough  to  each  other  so  as  to  present  real  danger  in 
entering  it.  In  the  absence  of  suspicion  and  intactness  of  the  papers, 
a  search  should  not  be  undertaken.  In  case  a  war-ship  accompanied 
the  vessels,  search  should  not  be  permitted  to  corsairs,  but  only  to 
national  war-ships.  This  treaty  subsequently  acceded  to  (under  com- 
pulsion) by  Denmark  and  Sweden,  indicated  a  complete  surrender 
of  the  principles  of  the  first  armed  neutrality.^     On  the  other  hand. 


iBertjl)(jlim,  p.  254;  Kleen,  op.  cit.,  vol.  1,  p.  26. 

2Dc  Bocck,  p.  73. 

3  Post,  pp.  531-549. 

*Post,  p.  595. 

^Klcen,  op.  cit.,  vol.  1,  p.  30. 


WESTLAKE  239 

the  treaty  contained  certain  rules  favorable  to  the  neutrals :  absolute 
inhibition  of  commerce  with  the  enemy  is  set  aside,  contraband  is  pre- 
cisely defined  and  in  order  that  a  blockade  may  be  lawful,  the  station- 
ing of  a  certain  number  of  ships  is  made  necessary.  Looked  at  from 
this  point  of  view,  it  may  be  said  that  the  convention  has  marked  a  step 
in  advance,  since  England  for  the  first  time  made  considerable  con- 
cessions to  several  neutral  States.^  These  concessions  were,  however, 
unimportant  in  practice  because  the  treaties  of  1801  were  subsequently 
treated  as  dead  letters.  On  the  whole  it  may  be  said  that  the  liberal 
principles  would  have  found  a  readier  acceptance,  if  the  great  Powers, 
especially  Russia,  had  been  less  hesitating  and  followed  the  fine  ex- 
ample of  Denmark.  The  interests  of  the  States  were,  however,  so 
varying  that  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  agree  upon  given  principles 
with  regard  to  the  most  important  problems.  No  armed  neutrality  has 
been  attempted  in  subsequent  times,  although  advocated  by  theorists 
like  Remy.-  It  would  be  of  great  importance  if  England  could  be 
made  to  realize  that  it  is  to  her  own  interests  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing with  the  other  States.^ 


WESTLAKE:     International  Law,  Fart  II,   War.     Second  edition, 

Cambridge,  1913. 

John  Westlake.  British  publicist;  born  in  1828;  died  in  1913.  He  was  elected 
a  fellow  of  Trinity  College  in  1851,  was  called  to  the  bar  in  1854,  and  later 
became  queen's  counsel  and  a  bencher  of  Lincoln's  Inn.  He  was  a  member  of 
the  permanent  court  of  arbitration  at  The  Hague,  Whewell  professor  of  inter- 
national law  at  Cambridge,  and  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Institute  of  Inter- 
national Law. 

As  an  authority  on  international  law  Westlake  enjoyed  world-wide  recog- 
nition, and  his  counsel  was  frequently  sought  by  the  British  Government  and 
by  foreign  Governments.  He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  first  periodical 
devoted  to  international  law,  Revue  de  droit  international  et  de  legislation  com- 
paree,  and  continued  to  be  a  coeditor  and  contributor  up  to  the  time  of  his 
death.  His  publications  include  A  Treatise  on  Private  International  Law,  1858, 
which  has  run  through  five  editions  and  is  recognized  as  a  standard  work, 
Interiiatiofial  Law,  Part  I,  Peace,  and  Part  II,  War,  in  two  volumes,  1904  and 


^Ibid.,  p.  31. 

2See  his  Thcorie  de  la  continuity  de  voyage,  1902,  p.  134. 

^See  Hold  v.  Ferneck,  Kriegskonterbande ,  1907,  p.  2. 


240  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

1907,  second  edition,   1910  and  1913,  and  Chapters  on  the  Principles  of  Inter- 
national Law,  1894. 


Page  26^. — The  compromise  between  belHgerents  and  neutraJs  is, 
however,  subject  to  the  question  whether  there  is  anything  peculiar  in 
the  character  of  the  investment  which  neutrals  have  accepted  as  equiv- 
alent to  siege,  and  on  this  we  meet  with  a  long  and  great  controversy 
which  still  exists  if  the  Declaration  of  London  shall  not  be  found  to 
have  settled  it.  One  point  has  always  been  certain,  namely,  that, 
whether  the  blockade  be  a  commercial  or  a  military  one,  there  must 
be  a  real  danger  to  the  blockade-runner  in  crossing  the  line  of  the  in- 
vestment, independent  of  any  danger  which  he  may  run  of  being 
caught  earlier  with  the  intention  of  crossing  it,  or  later  after  having 
crossed  it.  A  line  which  it  is  not  in  itself  highly  dangerous  to  try  to 
pass  can  not  be  that  of  an  investment,  nor  can  it  affect  with  technical 
guilt  either  the  intention  to  pass  it  formed  at  a  distance,  or  the  fact 
of  its  having  been  passed.  This  is  expressed  as  follows  by  the  Decla- 
ration of  Paris: 

4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  real,^  that  is  to 
say,  maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the 
coast  of  the  enemy. 

If  "really  to  prevent  access"  were  taken  literally,  the  successful 
crossing  the  line  by  one  blockade-runner  would  prove  the  blockade  to 
be  void,  which  has  never  been  contended.  The  meaning  therefore 
must  be,  "to  make  the  attempt  at  access  highly  dangerous."  But,  this 
being  so,  a  question  remains  as  to  the  method  by  which  the  danger 
may  be  created.  The  continental  Powers,  including  Holland  herself 
after  her  relative  decline  in  naval  power,  have  usually  maintained  that 
a  blockade  is  only  valid  in  law  if  the  danger  of  ingress  or  egress  arises 
from  the  cannon  either  of  ships,  stationan'  or  sufficiently  near  one 
another,  or  of  works  on  land.  This  is  laid  down,  with  more  or  less 
variety  of  expression,  in  the  treaty  of  1742  between  France  and  Den- 
mark, in  that  of  17S3  between  Holland  and  the  Two  Sicilies,  in  the 
declarations  and  treaties  of  armed  neutrality  in   17.S0,  in  the  various 


^Effectifs  in  the  original,  which  means  "real,"  not  "producing  an  effect,"  as 
effective,  which  is  the  official  translation,  usually  means  in  English.  So  also 
whenever  an  English  writer  mentions  an  effective  blockade,  he  must  be  under- 
stood to  mean  a  real  one,  that  is  a  real  investment,  and  not  to  be  adding  any 
further  condition  to  its  reality. 


WHARTON  241 

adhesions  of  other  continental  States  to  that  armed  neutrality'  or  its 
rules,  and  in  the  declarations  and  treaties  of  armed  neutrality  in  1800.^ 
When  Russia,  by  a  change  of  policy  consequent  on  the  battle  of  Copen- 
hagen and  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Paul,  abandoned  the  armed  neu- 
trality of  1800,  her  treaty  of  ISOl  with  England  required  for  a  block- 
ade the  presence  onh'^  of  ships  stationary  or,  instead  of  and,  sufficiently 
near  to  create  an  evident  danger  of  entering.  Yet  in  1823  she  assured 
the  United  States  that  she  no  longer  held  herself  bound  by  that 
engagement.^ 


WHARTON:     A   Digest  of  the  International  Laiv  of  the   United 
States.     Second  edition.     Washington,   1887. 

Francis  Wharton.  American  publicist;  born  in  1820;  died  in  1889.  He  grad- 
uated from  Yale  in  1839,  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1843,  and  after  fourteen 
successful  years  abandoned  the  practice  of  law  to  become  a  teacher,  chiefly  on 
theological  topics.  In  1862  he  fulfilled  a  long-cherished  desire  to  enter  the 
Ministry  of  the  Episcopal  Church  and  was  rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Brook- 
line,  Massachusetts,  from  1863-69.  Subsequently  he  became  a  teacher  of 
ecclesiastical  polity  and  canon  law,  lecturer  on  the  conflict  of  laws,  and  on 
criminal  law,  and  finally  professor  of  criminal  law  at  George  Washington 
University.     From  1885  to  1889  he  was  solicitor  for  the  Department  of  State. 

Wharton  is  one  of  the  foremost  American  authorities  on  international  law. 
His  first  important  publication  in  this  field  is  A  Treatise  on  the  ConAict  of  Laws, 
1872,  third  edition,  1905.     Later  works  dealing  with  this  subject  are  his  Com- 

^In  several  of  these  pieces  the  place  to  be  blockaded  is  described  as  attacked, 
but  considering  the  practice  of  the  eighteenth  century,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
this  arose  only  from  habit,  or  at  least  was  done  without  an  intention  to  require 
a  real  attack.  An  exception  to  that  interpretation  is,  however,  furnished  by  the 
treaty  of  1787  between  France  and  Russia,  in  which  the  rule  of  the  armed 
neutrality  of  1780  is  reproduced  with  a  variation  requiring  an  attack  by  a  num- 
ber of  ships  proportioned  to  the  strength  of  the  place,  and  Napoleon  or  his 
advisers,  may  have  had  that  treaty  in  their  mind  when  drafting  the  Berlin 
decree.  But  that  will  not  excuse  the  transparently  false  assertion  about  "the 
usage  of  all  civilized  nations."  See  above,  p.  262.  Again,  many  of  the  treaties, 
ending  with  that  between  Russia  and  Denmark  in  1818,  require  the  line  of 
investment  to  be  formed  by  a  certain  number  of  ships,  usually  two.  That  of 
1753,  mentioned  in  the  text,  requires  six  ships,  which  may  lie  a  little  outside 
the  range  of  the  shore  batteries,  but  which  must  expose  blockade-runners  to 
danger  from  their  cannon. 

^Lawrence's  IVheaton,  edition  of  1863,  editor's  note  235. 


242  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

mentarics  on  Law,  1884,  Digest  of  the  International  Law  of  the  United  States, 
1886,  3  volumes,  and  The  Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the 
United  States,  1889,  6  volumes. 


Volume  J,  page  262. — Previous  to  the  war  which  grew  out  of  the 
American  Revolution,  the  respective  rights  of  neutrals  and  belligerents 
had  been  settled  and  clearly  defined  by  the  conventional  law  of  Europe, 
to  which  all  the  maritime  Powers  had  given  their  sanction  in  the 
treaties  concluded  among  themselves.  The  few  practical  infractions, 
in  time  of  war,  of  the  principles  thus  recognized  by  them,  have  been 
disavowed,  upon  the  return  of  peace,  by  new  stipulations  again  ac- 
knowledging the  existence  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  as  set  down  in  the 
maritime  code. 

In  addition  to  the  recognition  of  these  rights  by  the  European 
Powers,  one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  United  States,  as  a  nation,  was 
their  unequivocal  sanction  of  the  principles  upon  which  they  are 
founded,  as  declared  in  their  treaty  of  commerce  of  1778  with  the 
King  of  France.  These  principles  were  that  free  ships  gave  freedom 
to  the  merchandise,  except  contraband  goods,  which  were  clearly  de- 
fined, and  that  neutrals  might  freely  sail  to  and  between  enemies' 
ports,  except  such  as  were  blockaded  in  the  manner  therein  set  forth. 
These  principles  having  thus  been  estblished  by  universal  consent,  be- 
came the  rule  by  which  it  was  expected  that  the  belligerents  would  be 
governed  in  the  war  which  broke  out  about  that  time  between  France 
and  Spain,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Great  Britain,  on  the  other.  The  lat- 
ter Power,  however,  having  soon  betrayed  a  disposition  to  deviate  from 
them  in  some  of  the  most  material  points,  the  Governments  which  haa 
preserved  a  neutral  course  in  the  contest  became  alarmed  at  the  dan- 
ger with  which  their  maritime  rights  were  threatened  by  the  encroach- 
ments and  naval  supremacy  of  England,  and  the  Empress  of  Russia, 
at  their  head,  undertook  to  unite  them  in  the  defense  of  those  rights. 
On  the  28th  February,  1780,  she  issued  her  celebrated  declaration,  con- 
taining the  principles  according  to  which  the  commanders  of  her  naval 
armaments  would  be  instructed  to  protect  the  neutral  rights  of  her 
subjects.    Those  principles  were  as  follows: 

1st.  Neutral  vessels  mav  freely  sail  from  port  to  port,  and  on  the 
coasts  of  the  nations  parties  to  the  war. 

2d.  The  goods  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  said  nations  are, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  articles,  free  on  board  neutral  vessels. 


WHARTON  243 

3d.  With  respect  to  the  definition  of  contraband  articles,  the  Em- 
press adheres  to  the  provisions  of  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of  her 
treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  and  extends  the  obligations 
therein  contained  to  all  the  nations  at  war. 

4th.  To  determine  what  constitiites  a  blockaded  port,  this  denomina- 
tion is  confined  to  those  the  entrance  into  which  is  manifestly  rendered 
dang-eroiis  in  consequence  of  the  dispositions  made  by  the  attacking 
Power  with  ships  stationed  and  sufficiently  near. 

5th.  These  principles  are  to  sene  as  a  rule  in  proceedings  and 
judgments  with  respect  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

This  declaration  was  communicated  to  the  belligerent  Governments 
with  a  request  that  the  principles  it  contained  should  be  observed  by 
them  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  From  France  and  Spain  it  re- 
ceived the  most  cordial  and  unequivocal  approbation,  as  being  founded 
upon  the  maxims  of  public  law  which  had  been  their  rule  of  conduct. 
Great  Britain,  without  directly  approving  or  condemning  those  maxims, 
promised  that  the  rights  of  Russia  would  be  respected  agreeably  to  ex- 
isting treaties.  The  declaration  was  likewise  communicated  to  the 
other  European  Powers,  and  the  accession  by  treaties  or  solemn  dec- 
larations of  Denmark.  Sweden.  Russia,  Holland,  Austria,  Portugal, 
and  the  Two  Sicilies  to  the  principles  asserted  by  the  Empress  of  Rus- 
sia, formed  the  league,  which,  under  the  name  of  "armed  neutrality," 
undertook  to  preserve  inviolate  the  maritime  rights  of  neutrals. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  conduct  of  the  belligerents  in  that  war 
with  respect  to  the  rights  of  neutrals  as  declared  by  the  armed  neu- 
trality, the  principles  asserted  by  the  declaration  of  the  Empress 
Catharine  were  again  solemnly  recognized  by  the  treaty  of  peace  con- 
cluded by  Great  Britain  and  France  at  Versailles  on  the  3d  Septenv 
ber,  1783.  Among  the  several  treaties  thereby  renewed  and  con- 
firmed was  that  of  Utrecht,  in  1713,  by  which  the  same  contracting 
parties  had,  nearly  a  century  before,  given  the  most  solemn  sanction 
to  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  which  were  thus  again  pro- 
claimed by  the  most  deliberate  acts  both  of  belligerents  and  neutrals 
as  forming  the  basis  of  the  universal  code  of  maritime  legislation 
among  the  naval  Powers  of  the  world. 

Such  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  established  law  of  nations  at 
the  period  of  the  peace  of  1783,  when  the  United  States,  recognized  as 
independent  by  all  the  Powers  of  the  earth,  took  their  station  amongst 
them.    These  principles,  to  which  they  had  given  their  sanction  in  their 


244     "  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

treaties  with  France  in  1778,  were  again  confirmed  in  those  of  1782 
with  Sweden,  and  1785  with  Prussia,  and  continued,  uncontroverted 
by  other  nations,  until  the  wars  of  the  French  Revolution  broke  out 
and  became  almost  general  in  Europe  in  1793.  The  maxims  then  ad- 
vanced by  Great  Britain  in  her  instructions  to  her  naval  commanders 
and  in  her  orders  in  council  regulating  their  conduct  and  that  of  her 
privateers  with  regard  to  neutrals,  being  in  direct  contravention  of  the 
principles  set  forth  in  the  declaration  of  the  armed  neutrality  and  in 
her  own  treaty  stipulations,  compelled  the  European  Powers  which 
had  remained  neutral  in  the  contest  to  unite  again  for  the  protection  of 
their  rights.  It  v/as  with  this  view  that  the  Emperor  Paul,  of  Russia, 
apealed  to  these  Powers,  and  that,  at  his  instance,  making  common 
cause  in  behalf  of  the  general  interests  of  nations,  Russia,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  and  Prussia  united  in  a  new  league  of  armed  neutrality, 
bound  themselves  by  new  treaties,  reasserted  the  principles  laid  down 
in  the  declaration  of  1780,  and  added  thereto  some  new  clauses  extend- 
ing still  further  the  privileges  of  neutral  commerce. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  Sec.  of  State,  to  Mr.  Randolph,  June  18,  1830. 
Mss.  Inst.,  Ministers. 

Page  411. — By  the  "armed  neutrality"  entered  into  during  the  Ameri- 
can Revolutionar}'  War  by  Russia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden  in  1780, 
"being  the  three  northern  Powers  from  whose  dominions  chiefly  the 
other  maritime  nations  of  Europe  received  supplies  of  timber  and 
other  naval  stores,"  the  eflFort  was  made  "to  strike  these  from  the  list 
of  contraband,  or  by  some  means  to  exempt  them  from  capture." 
It  was  understood,  however,  at  the  time,  that  this  was  an  exception 
from  the  law  of  nations.  By  this  law  "timber  and  other  articles  for 
the  equipment  of  ships  are  contraband  of  war."  Hence  the  recital  of 
this  principle  in  Jay's  treaty  ought  to  give  no  just  cause  of  ofifense  to 
France. 

Mr.  Pickering,  Sec.  of  State,  to  Mr.  Pinckney,  Jan.  16,  1797. 
Mss.  Inst.,  Ministers. 


WHEATON  245 

WHEATON :  History  of  the  Lazv  of  Nations  in  Europe  and  America 
from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  1842. 
New  York,  1845. 

Henry  Wheaton.  American  publicist;  born  in  1785;  died  in  1848.  Mr. 
Wheaton  practiced  law  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  was  reporter,  from  1816 
to  1827,  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  holding 
an  enviable  reputation  throughout  the  country  in  respect  to  learning  on  foreign 
and  international  questions.  Following  this  he  spent  twenty  years  in  the  diplo- 
matic service  of  the  United  States  as  charge  d'affaires  to  Denmark,  1827  to 
1835,  and  as  minister  to  Prussia,  1837  to  1846,  during  which  time  he  was  engaged 
in  negotiations  of  great  importance  to  his  own  country  and  Europe. 

As  a  commentator  on  the  science  of  international  law  Mr.  Wheaton  combined 
advantages  which  were  not  previously  united  in  any  of  his  countrymen.  One 
of  his  earliest  works  is  Law  of  Maritime  Captures,  published  in  1815.  In  1836 
he  published  his  greatest  work.  The  Elements  of  International  Law,  in  two  edi- 
tions, one  at  Philadelphia  and  the  other  at  London.  This  treatise,  almost  rival- 
ing that  of  Vattel  in  popularity,  has  been  translated  into  several  languages  and, 
enriched  with  notes  by  Richard  H.  Dana,  is  a  standard  work. 


Page  295. — In  the  meantime  Spain  had  been  drawn  into  the  war  as  an 
ally  of  France  under  the  family  compact  of  1761,  and  Great  Britain  had 
demanded  in  vain  from  Holland  that  assistance  which  the  republic 
was  bound  to  render  by  the  subsisting  treaties  of  alliance  and  guar- 
antee between  the  two  countries.  Indeed  appearances  indicated  that 
Great  Britain  was  soon  to  encounter  an  enemy  in  her  ancient  ally. 
Her  naval,  commercial,  and  colonial  superiority  were  thus  threatened 
by  a  formidable  confederacy  of  the  maritime  Powers  of  Europe  com- 
bined with  the  youthful  energies  of  her  own  revolted  colonies.  In 
this  extremity,  the  British  Cabinet  turned  its  attention  to  Russia,  as 
a  Power  whose  friendship  and  aid  might  be  secured  by  the  applica- 
tion of  suitable  means.  Sir  James  Harris  (afterwards  Lord  Malmes- 
bury)  was  instructed  to  sound  the  disposition  of  the  Empress  Cath- 
arine, and  for  this  purpose  addressed  himself  to  Panin,  Chancellor 
of  the  Empire,  and  Potemkin.  the  reigning  favorite  of  that  princess. 
The  former  was  unfavorable  to  the  views  of  the  British  Cabinet; 
but  the  latter  opened  to  their  Ambassador  the  means  of  secret  con- 
ference with  the  Empress,  who  consented  to  offer  her  armed  media- 
tion in  the  war  between  Great  Britain  on  the  one  side,  and  France, 
Spain,  and  the  United  States  on  the  other,  as  an  equivalent  for  Rus- 
sia's being  allowed  to  prosecute  her  designs  on  the  Turkish  Empire. 
But  the  inclinations  of  the  Empress  were  still  resisted  by  Panin,  who 


246  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

endeavored  to  convince  her  that  the  true  interests  of  the  Russian  State 
would  not  be  promoted  by  such  an  alliance  ;  and  an  official  answer  was 
accordingly  returned  declining  the  British  overtures.  Harris  was  dis- 
concerted by  this  unexpected  result,  but  received  assurances  from 
Potemkin,  in  the  name  of  the  Empress,  of  unchanged  good-will,  and 
an  expression  of  the  hope  that  circumstances  would  soon  enable  her 
to  conform  her  conduct  to  her  wishes. 

An  incident  now  occurred  which  seemed  to  favor  the  designs  of 
the  British  negotiator.  Two  Russian  vessels  laden  with  corn,  and 
bound  to  the  Mediterranean,  were  seized  by  Spanish  cruisers  upon 
the  ground  that  they  were  intended  to  supply  the  fortress  of  Gibraltar. 
The  Empress  instantly  demanded  satisfaction  from  the  Spanish  Court, 
and  was  persuaded  by  Potemkin  to  order,  without  consulting  Panin, 
the  equipment  of  a  fleet  at  Kronstadt,  which  was  destined  to  cooperate 
with  Great  Britain  against  Spain  and  her  allies,  in  case  redress  should 
be  refused.  The  fitting  out  of  the  fleet  could  not  long  be  concealed 
from  Panin,  nor  did  he  doubt  its  destination.  But  he  determined  to 
carry  into  effect  his  own  views  by  appearing  to  forward  those  of  his 
rival.  Far  from  appearing  to  oppose  the  designs  of  the  Empress,  he 
declared  that  he  himself  participated  in  her  indignation  at  the  conduct 
of  Spain,  and  entirely  approved  of  her  determination  to  require  satis- 
faction for  the  injury  done  to  the  neutral  navigation  of  her  subjects 
engaged  in  a  lawful  commerce.  He  would  even  go  further ;  he  would 
exhort  his  sovereign  to  seize  this  opportunity  of  solemnly  announcing 
to  Europe  that  she  would  not  suffer  the  wars  waged  by  other  Powers 
to  affect  injuriously  the  accustomed  trade  of  Russia.  He  represented 
that  such  a  course  would  secure  the  friendship  and  cooperation  of  all 
the  neutral  Powers,  and  would  compel  Spain  to  grant  complete  satis- 
faction for  the  injury  she  had  committed.  The  true  principles  of 
neutrality,  sanctioned  by  the  natural  law  of  nations,  had  been  hitherto 
too  little  respected  in  practice.  They  had  hitherto  wanted  the  support 
of  a  sovereign  uniting  sufficient  power,  wisdom,  and  benevolence  to 
cause  them  to  be  respected.  These  requisites  were  now  united  in 
Catharine,  and  she  had  an  opportunity  of  acquiring  new  titles  to  glory, 
of  becoming  a  lawgiver  to  the  high  seas,  of  restraining  the  excesses  of 
maritime  warfare,  and  affording  to  the  peaceful  commerce  of  neutrals 
such  a  security  as  it  never  had  possessed. 

The  Empress  was  completely  carried  away  by  these  representations 
so  flattering  to  her  pride  and  ambition.     She  ordered  Panin  to  prepare 


WHEATON  247 

a  statement  of  the  principles  he  had  developed,  to  be  communicated 
to  the  belHgerent  Powers,  as  the  rules  to  be  observed  for  the  security 
of  Russian  navigation  and  commerce,  and  to  neutral  States,  as  the 
basis  of  a  league  to  be  formed  between  them  for  the  protection  of 
neutral  rights.^ 

In  the  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia,  which  was  accordingly 
drawn  up,  under  date  of  the  26th  [sic]  February,  1780,  and  communi- 
cated to  the  Courts  of  London.  Versailles,  and  Madrid,  these  rules  are 
laid  down  as  follows  : 

1.  That  all  neutral  vessels  may  freely  navigate  from  port  to  port 
and  on  the  coasts  of  nations  at  war.  ,, 

2.  That  the  goods  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  in  neutral  vessels,  except  contraband  articles. 

3.  That  the  Empress,  as  to  the  specification  of  the  above-mentioned 
goods,  holds  to  what  is  mentioned  in  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of 
her  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  extending  these  obliga- 
tions to  all  the  Powers  at  war.- 

4.  That  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  a  blockaded  port,  this  denom- 
ination is  only  to  be  given  to  that  where  there  is,  by  the  arrangements 
of  the  Power  which  attacks  it  with  vessels,  stationed  sufficiently  near, 
an  evident  danger  in  attempting  to  enter  it.^ 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  first  armed  neutrality  of  1780.  It  sprung 
from  no  enlarged  and  beneficent  views  of  improvement  in  the  mari- 


^Von  Dohm,  DcnkTujilrdigkeiten  meiner  Zeit,  vol.  2,  pp.  100-150;  Mhnoire 
sur  la  Neutralite  armee  par  M.  le  Comte  de  Goertz,  p.   104. 

This  account  given  by  the  Count  de  Goertz  of  the  history  of  the  armed 
neutrality  is  confirmed  by  what  the  Empress  Maria  Theresa  said  to  Baron  de 
Breteuil.  Minister  of  France.  "II  n'y  a  pas,"  lui  dit-elle  a  I'occasion  de  la 
neutralite  armee;  "il  n'y  a  pas  jusqu'a  ses  vues  les  plus  mal  combinees,  qui 
ne  tournent  a  son  profit  et  a  sa  gloire ;  car  vous  savez  sans  doute  que  la 
declaration,  qu'elle  vient  de  faire  pour  sa  neutralite  maritime,  avait  d'abord 
ete  arretee  dans  des  termes  et  dans  des  vites  absolument  favorables  a  I'An- 
gleterre.  Cet  ouvrage  avait  ete  fait  par  la  seule  influence  de  M.  le  Prince 
Potemkin,  et  a  I'insu  de  M.  le  Comte  de  Panin ;  et  cette  declaration,  inspiree 
par  I'Angleterre,  etait  au  moment  de  paraitre,  lorsque  M.  de  Panin,  qui 
en  a  ete  instruit,  a  trouve  moyen  de  la  faire  entierement  changer  et  de  la 
tourner  absolument  en  votre  faveur."  Flassan,  Histoire  de  la  diplomatie 
frangaise,  vol.  7,  p.  272  note. 

-The  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  of  1766  between  Great  Britain  and 
Russia,  Article  10,  restricts  contraband  to  "munitions  of  war";  and  the  11th 
article  defines  these  to  consist  of  "canons,  mortiers,  armes  a  feu,  pistolets, 
grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres-a-feu,  meches,  poudre,  salpetre, 
souffre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceinturons,  poches  a  cartouche,  selles  et  brides, 
au  dela  de  la  quantite  qui  peut  etre  necessaire  pour  I'usage  du  vaisseau,"  etc. 
Post,  pp.  342,  343. 

sPost,  p.  273. 


248  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

time  law  of  nations  hitherto  sanctioned  by  general  practice.  It  was 
the  accidental  result  of  a  mere  court  intrigue,  and  of  the  rivalry 
between  two  candidates  for  the  favor  of  a  dissolute,  ambitious,  and 
vain-glorious  woman.  Catharine  herself  had  a  very  imperfect  idea  of 
the  immense  importance  of  the  measure  she  had  adopted  and  of  the 
effects  it  might  produce.  So  ignorant  was  she  of  commerce,  that  she 
flattered  herself  with  having  at  once  vindicated  her  own  honor  and 
shown  her  strong  regard  for  Great  Britain,  Panin  took  care  not  to 
undeceive  her  and,  fearing  that  his  intrigue  might  fail,  begged  she 
would  not  communicate  with  any  one  until  the  couriers  were  sent  oflf 
with  the  declaration.  But  she  could  not  refrain  from  saying  confi- 
dentially to  the  British  Ambassador  that  there  would  soon  be  deliv- 
ered in  her  name  to  all  the  belligerent  Powers  a  manifesto  which  would 
be  completely  satisfactory  to  the  British  Government;  and  conde- 
scended even  to  give  him  leave  to  communicate  thus  much  to  his 
Court.  The  communication  which  he  accordingly  made  raised  its 
expectations  to  the  highest  pitch,  and  the  disappointment  was  pro- 
portionably  greater  when  it  learnt  the  true  nature  of  the  measures 
adopted  by  the  Russian  Cabinet. 

The  British  Government  dissembled  its  resentment,  and  replied  to 
the  Russian  declaration  with  cold  dignity,  that  His  Majesty  had  hith- 
erto acted  towards  neutral  Powers  "conformably  to  the  clearest  prin- 
ciples generally  acknowledged  as  the  law  of  nations,  being  the  only 
law  between  Powers  where  no  treaties  subsist,  and  agreeably  to  the 
tenor  of  his  different  engagements  with  other  Powers,  where  those 
engagements  have  altered  this  primitive  law  by  mutual  stipulations 
proportioned  to  the  will  and  convenience  of  the  contracting  Parties," 
and  that  "strongly  attached  to  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the 
Russias  by  the  ties  of  reciprocal  friendship  and  common  interest,  the 
King,  from  the  commencement  of  those  troubles,  gave  the  most  pre- 
cise orders  respecting  the  flag  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and  the  com- 
merce of  her  subjects,  agreeably  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  tenor 
of  the  engagements  stipulated  by  his  treaty  of  commerce  with  her, 
and  to  which  he  shall  adhere  with  the  most  scrupulous  exactness."^ 

The  Court  of  Spain  answered  the  Russian  declaration  by  professing 
its  determination  to  respect  the  neutral  flag  of  all  the  Powers  that 
had   consented,   or  should   consent  to   defend   it,   until   His   Catholic 


'Answer  of  Great  Britain,  April  23d,  1780,  to  the  declaration  of  the  Empress 
of  Russia,  fyost,  p.  282. 


WHEATON  249 

Majesty  ascertained  what  part  Great  Britain  should  take,  and  whether 
its  navy  and  privateers  would  keep  within  due  bounds.  And  to  show 
to  all  the  neutral  Powers  how  much  Spain  was  desirous  of  observ- 
ing, in  time  of  war,  the  same  rules  of  which  she  had  claimed  the 
observance  whilst  neutral,  His  Majesty  conformed  to  those  laid  down 
by  Russia,  "with  the  understanding  however  that  with  regard  to  the 
blockade  of  Gibraltar,  the  danger  of  entering  subsists  as  determined 
by  the  4th  article  of  the  said  declaration."^ 

The  Court  of  France  answered,  that  the  principles  laid  down  by 
Russia  were  no  other  than  the  rules  already  prescribed  to  the  French 
navy,  the  execution  of  which  was  maintained  with  an  exactness  known 
and  applauded  by  all  Europe.  "The  freedom  of  neutral  vessels,  re- 
strained in  a  few  cases  only,  is  a  direct  consequence  of  natural  law, 
the  security  of  nations,  and  the  consolation  even  of  those  who  are 
afflicted  by  the  scourge  of  war.  The  King  has  therefore  been  desirous 
to  procure,  not  only  to  the  subjects  of  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  but  to  all  other  States  which  continue  neutral,  the  freedom  of 
navigation  on  the  same  conditions  with  those  announced  in  the  declar- 
ation, to  which  His  Majesty  this  day  replies.  The  King  believed  that 
he  had  already  advanced  the  general  good,  and  prepared  a  glorious 
epoch  of  his  reign,  in  establishing  by  his  example  those  rights  which 
every  belligerent  ought  and  must  recognize  as  belonging  to  neutral 
vessels.  This  hope  has  not  been  vain,  since  the  Empress,  whilst  en- 
gaging to  observe  the  most  exact  neutrality,  has  declared  in  favor  of 
that  system  which  the  King  sustains  at  the  price  of  the  blood  of  his 
people,  whilst  she  claims  the  same  laws  which  His  Majesty  would 
make  the  basis  of  the  universal  maritime  code."- 

Denmark  and  Sweden  concurred  in  approvmg  the  principles  of  the 
Russian  declaration,  and  notified  their  concurrence  to  the  belligerent 
Powers. 

Great  Britain  answered  to  the  Danish  notification,  that  during  the 
whole  course  of  the  present  war  with  France  and  Spain,  she  had  con- 
stantly respected  the  rights  of  all  friendly  and  neutral  Powers,  ac- 
cording to  subsisting  treaties,  and  according  to  the  clearest  and  most 
generally  recognized  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  common  to  all 
nations  who  are  bound  by  no  special  conventions.     Such  conventions 


^Answer  from  the  King  of  Spain  signed  by  Florida  Blanca,  April  18.   1780, 
post,  p.  279. 

2  Answer  of  France,  April  25,  1780,  post,  p.  284. 


250  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

existed  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark,  and  the  Danish  flag 
and  commerce  would  continue  to  be  respected  according  to  their  stipu- 
lations, which  defined  the  mutual  rights  and  duties  of  the  two  nations 
and  which  could  not  be  changed  without  their  mutual  consent.  Until 
thus  changed,  they  constituted  an  inviolable  law  for  both  parties, 
which  had  been  observed  and  would  continue  to  be  observed  by  the 
British  Government  with  that  spirit  of  equity  which  regulated  all  its 
conduct,  and  in  the  just  expectation  of  reciprocal  fidelity  on  the  part 
of  Denmark  to  its  engagements.^ 

To  the  notification  of  Sweden  the  British  Cabinet  answered  in  a 
similar  manner,  with  a  special  reference  to  the  stipulations  of  the  exist- 
ing treaties  between  the  two  countries,  which  were  clear  and  formal, 
and  could  not  be  changed  without  the  mutual  consent  of  the  contract- 
ing Parties.  As  such,  they  would  be  observed  by  Great  Britain,  as  a 
sacred  and  inviolable  law.^ 

Denmark  and  Russia  concluded  at  Copenhagen  on  the  9th  July, 
1780,  the  convention  of  armed  neutrality  for  the  maintenance  of  those 
principles  by  the  equipment  of  a  joint  fleet,  and  for  their  mutual 
defense  against  any  Power  who  should  attack  either  of  the  contract- 
ing Parties  on  account  of  their  reciprocal  engagements.  By  this  con- 
vention, to  which  Sweden  acceded  on  the  9th  September,  1780,  the 
Baltic  sea  was  declared  to  be  mare  clausutn  against  the  ships  of  war 
of  the  belligerent  Powers ;  and  the  contracting  Parties  referred  to 
their  respective  treaties  with  the  belligerent  Powers  for  the  definition 
of  contraband.^ 

In  the  meantime  a  diplomatic  struggle  was  going  on  in  the  United 
Provinces  between  the  agents  of  France  and  Great  Britain,  the  former 
seeking  to  confirm  the  Republic  in  her  resolution  of  remaining  neutral, 
and  the  latter  insisting  on  her  furnishing  the  succors  stipulated  by  the 
existing  treaties  of  alliance  and  guarantee.  In  order  to  determine  the 
conduct  of  the  Dutch,  the  French  Government  issued,  on  the  14th  of 
January,  1779,  an  ordinance  suspending  the  operation  of  the  first 
article,  that  of  the  26th  July,  1778,  in  respect  to  their  navigation,  ex- 
cepting that  of  Amsterdam.  The  operation  of  this  ordinance  was 
again  suspended  as  respected  the  entire  province  of  Holland  on  the 
2d  of  July,  1779,  which  still  continued  to  be  privileged  under  the  for- 


^Answer  of  Great  Britain  to  the  Danish  declaration  of  July  8,  1780,  post,  p. 
308. 
^Post,  p.  317. 
^'Post,  pp.  299,  322. 


WHEATON  251 

mer  ordinance  of  1778.  France  thus  sought  to  divide  the  councils  of 
the  Republic,  whilst  the  British  Court  notified  the  States  General  that, 
if  they  did  not,  within  the  term  of  three  weeks,  furnish  the  stipulated 
succors,  Great  Britain  would  no  longer  consider  their  flag  as  privileged 
by  treaty,  but  would  conduct  [sic],  in  respect  to  it,  according  to  the 
strict  principles  of  the  preexisting  law  of  nations.  This  menace  was 
executed  by  the  proclamation  of  the  17th  April,  1780,  which  author- 
ized the  seizure  of  Dutch  vessels,  bound  from  one  enemy's  port  to 
another,  or  laden  with  enemies'  property.  Whilst  thus  agitated  by 
alternate  hopes  and  fears,  the  States  General  were  invited  by  Russia 
to  accede  to  the  convention  of  armed  neutrality  which  had  been 
formed  by  the  Baltic  Powers.  After  long  delays  and  hesitation,  the 
resolution  for  this  purpose  was,  at  length,  passed  on  the  20th  Novem- 
ber, 1780;  but  it  was  even  then  not  unanimous,  the  three  provinces  of 
Zealand,  Guelders,  and  Utrecht,  having  refused  their  assent.  This 
was  followed  on  the  20th  December,  1780,  by  a  declaration  of  war 
against  the  United  Provinces  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  grounded 
upon  the  alleged  fact  of  their  having  concluded  a  secret  treaty  ac- 
knowledging the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America.  The 
United  Provinces  demanded  from  the  northern  Powers  the  succors 
stipulated  by  the  convention  of  amied  neutrality ;  but  this  demand  was 
rejected,  upon  the  ground  that  the  rupture  between  Great  Britain  and 
Holland,  had  actually  taken  place  before  the  accession  of  the  latter  to 
the  armed  neutrality,  and  that  the  causes  of  war,  stated  in  the  British 
declaration,  were  entirely  foreign  to  the  objects  of  the  neutral 
alliance.^ 

The  United  States  of  America  acceded  to  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality  by  the  ordinance  of  Congress  of  the  7th  April,  1781. 

Prussia  acceded  to  the  armed  neutrality  on  the  8th  May,  1781. 

Austria  acceded  to  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality,  but  not  to 
the  conventions  by  which  it  was  formed,  on  the  9th  October,  1781. 

Portugal  acceded  to  the  conventions  on  the  13th  July,  1782. 

The  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  acceded  to  the  conventions  on  the  10th 
February,  1783.- 

The  armed  neutrality  of  the  northern  Powers  continued  to  hang 
as  a  dark  cloud  constantly  menacing  the  safety  of  the  British  Empire 


iSchoell,  Histoire  abregee  des  traitcs  de  paix,  vol.  4,  p.  53;  Flassan,  Histoire  de 
la  diplofnatte  francaise,  vol.  7,  pp.  282-297;  post,  p.  277. 
^February  21,  1783,  new  style.    Post.  p.  433. 


252  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

until  the  peace  of  1783.  Being  engaged  in  war  with  France,  Spain, 
Holland,  and  the  United  States  of  America,  the  addition  of  the  hos- 
tility of  those  Powers  might  have  turned  the  already  doubtful  balance 
against  her  naval  superiority.  It  was  with  this  view,  and  also  to 
detach  Holland  from  the  confederacy,  that  Great  Britain  offered,  in 
1782,  to  make  a  separate  peace  with  the  Republic,  under  the  mediation 
of  Russia,  on  the  basis  of  the  treaty  of  1674,  by  which,  as  Mr.  Fox, 
then  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Afifairs,  stated  in  his  communica- 
tion to  the  Russian  Minister  in  London,  "the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality  are  established  in  their  widest  extent  to  all  the  contracting 
Parties.  His  ATajesty,  therefore,  does  not  make  any  difhculty  to  say, 
that  he  will  accept,  as  the  basis  of  a  separate  peace  between  him  and 
the  States  General,  a  free  navigation,  according  to  the  principles  de- 
manded by  Her  Imperial  Majesty  in  her  declaration  of  the  26th  [sic] 
February,  1780."^ 

This  negotiation  proved  abortive,  and  Great  Britain  continued  to  act 
towards  the  Powers  which  remained  neutral  during  the  American  war, 
according  to  the  preexisting  law  of  nations,  as  understood  and  prac- 
ticed by  her.  She,  however,  asserted  her  maritime  pretensions  with 
much  forbearance  and  caution,  and  suiiFered  the  rule  she  had  estab- 
lished in  the  war  of  1756,  relating  to  the  enemy's  colonial  trade,  to 
slumber  in  oblivion. - 

Page  597. — Whilst  this  negotiation''  was  going  on,  the  Emperor  of 
Russia,  who  had  separated  himself,  first  from  the  alliance  of  Austria, 
and  subsequently  from  that  of  Great  Britain,  proposed  to  the  Courts  of 
Denmark,  Prussia,  and  Sweden,  to  conclude  a  convention  for  the  revival 
of  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780.  This  proposition 
was  grounded  principally  upon  the  necessity  of  concerting  on  the  part 
of  the  northern  Powers  measures  of  defense  against  aggressions 
similar  to  that  which  it  was  alleged  had  been  committed  on  the  Danish 
frigate  Freya:  and  the  Emperor  Paul  no  sooner  heard  of  the  arrival 
of  a  British  fleet  in  the  Sound,  than  he  ordered  a  sequestration  to  be 
placed  upon  all  British  property  in  the  Russian  ports.  The  signature 
of  the  convention  of  the  29th  August,  between  Denmark  and  Great 


'^Annual  Register  for  1782,  p.  299. 

^Here  follows  a  history  of  the  period  extending  to  the  year  1800. 

^I.  e.,  the  negotiation  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark  terminated  by  the 
convention  of  Copenhagen  of  August  29,  1800,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that 
the  Danish  Government  should  suspend  the  granting  of  convoy  until  the  ques- 
tion of  right  should  be  settled  by  a  definitive  convention. 


WHEATON  253 

Britain,  induced  him  to  retract  this  measure.  But  the  refusal  of  the 
British  Government  to  deHver  to  him  the  possession  of  the  island  of 
Malta,  which  he  claimed  under  an  alleged  agreement  with  that  Gov- 
ernment, induced  him  to  lay  an  embargo  on  all  British  vessels.  Three 
treaties  were  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  on  the  16th  December,  between 
Kussia  and  Sweden  and  between  Russia  and  Prussia,  and  on  the  18th 
between  Russia  and  Prussia ;  and  as  each  of  these  Powers  acceded  to 
the  treaties  of  the  others  with  Russia,  they  formed  together  a  sort  of 
quadruple  alliance. 

By  the  first  article  of  these  treaties,  the  contracting  Parties  agreed 
to  prohibit  to  their  subjects  all  trade  in  contraband  of  war  with  any 
of  the  belligerent  Powers. 

The  second  article  confined  the  list  of  contraband  to  military  stores, 
as  stipulated  in  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780  by  reference  to  the  treaty 
of  1766  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia.  But  it  was  provided 
that  this  stipulation  should  be  without  prejudice  to  the  particular 
stipulations  in  anterior  treaties  with  the  belligerent  Parties,  by  which 
objects  of  a  similar  kind  are  reserved,  prohibited,  or  permitted. 

The  third  article  provided,  that  the  list  of  contraband  articles,  being 
thus  determined  and  excluded  from  neutral  commerce,  the  contracting 
Parties  had  resolved  that  all  other  trade  should  remain  perfectly  free. 
It  was  further  declared,  by  the  same  article,  that  in  order  to  provide  a 
sufficient  security  for  the  general  principles  of  natural  law,  of  which 
the  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  and  the  rights  of  neutral 
nations  are  a  direct  consequence,  they  had  determined  no  longer  to 
suffer  them  to  depend  upon  arbitrary  interpretation  suggested  by 
isolated  and  temporary  interests.     With  this  view  they  had  agreed: 

1.  That  every  vessel  may  navigate  freely,  from  port  to  port,  and  on 
the  coasts  of  nations  at  war. 

2.  That  the  goods  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  in  neutral  vessels,  except  contraband  articles. 

3.  That  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  a  blockaded  port,  this  denom- 
ination is  only  to  be  given  to  that  where  there  is,  by  the  arrangement 
of  the  Power  which  attacks  it  with  vessels,  stationed  sufficiently  near 
so  that  there  is  an  evident  danger  in  attempting  to  enter  it;  and  that 
any  vessel,  sailing  towards  a  blockaded  port,  should  not  be  considered 
as  contravening  the  convention,  unless,  after  having  been  notified  by 
the  commander  of  the  blockading  force  of  the  existence  of  the  block- 


254  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ade,  she  should  still  endeavor  to  enter  the  blockaded  port  by  means 
of  force  or  fraud. 

4.  That  neutral  vessels  shall  only  be  detained  for  just  cause  and 
evident  facts,  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  without  delay,  that  the  pro- 
cedure shall  be  always  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and  that  in  every 
case,  besides  the  damages  awarded  to  the  injured  parties,  complete 
satisfaction  shall  be  given  for  the  insult  to  the  national  flag. 

5.  That  the  declaration  of  the  officers,  commanding  the  public  ships 
which  shall  accompany  the  convoy  of  one  or  more  merchant  vessels, 
that  the  ships  of  his  convoy  have  no  contraband  articles  on  board, 
shall  be  deemed  sufficient  to  prevent  any  search  on  board  the  convoy- 
ing vessels  or  those  under  convoy. 

The  remaining  articles  provided  for  a  joint  armament  to  protect  the 
neutral  commerce  of  the  subjects  of  the  contracting  Parties,  and  for 
an  eventual  alliance,  in  case  either  of  them  should  be  attacked  on 
account  of  these  engagements. 

The  Danish  Government,  at  first,  hesitated  to  ratify  the  treaty  which 
had  been  signed  by  their  Ministers  at  St.  Petersburg.  It  was  already 
bound  by  the  convention  of  Copenhagen  to  Great  Britain  not  to  grant 
convoys  to  its  merchant  vessels  until  the  question  should  be  finally 
determined  between  the  two  Powers.  An  unconditional  accession  to 
the  treaties  of  armed  neutrality  would  seem  to  be  a  violation  of  its 
previous  engagements  with  Great  Britain.  In  the  meantime,  the 
British  Minister  at  Copenhagen,  by  his  note  dated  the  27th  December, 
had  demanded  a  clear,  frank,  and  satisfactory  answer  upon  the  nature, 
objects,  and  extent  of  the  obligations  Denmark  might  have  contracted, 
or  the  negotiations  she  was  still  pursuing  with  the  other  northern 
Powders.  Count  Bernstorfif,  in  his  reply  to  this  note,  of  the  31st  De- 
cember, denied  that  the  engagements  his  Government  was  upon  the 
point  of  contracting  were  hostile  to  Great  Britain,  or  inconsistent  with 
the  previous  convention  of  the  29th  August.  He  asserted,  that  a 
conditional  and  temporary  suspension  of  the  exercise  of  a  right  could 
not  be  considered  as  an  abandonment  of  the  right  which  was  incon- 
testable, and  for  the  maintenance  of  which  the  northern  Powers  were 
about  to  provide  by  a  mutual  concert,  which  far  from  compromising 
their  neutrality,  was  intended  to  confirm  it. 

The  British  Government  replied  to  this  note  by  an  order  in  council, 
dated  the  14th  of  January,  1801,  laying  an  embargo  on  all  Russian, 
Swedish,  and  Danish  ves.sels.    Lord  Grenville  notified  this  order  to  the 


WHEATON  '  255 

Ministers  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  declaring  that  the  new  maritime 
code  of  1780,  now  sought  to  be  revived,  was  an  innovation  highly 
injurious  to  the  dearest  interests  of  Great  Britain,  and  which  Russia 
herself  had  renounced  by  the  engagements  contracted  between  her 
and  Great  Britain  at  the  commencement  of  the  then  present  war. 

These  measures  decided  Denmark  to  adhere  unconditionally  to  the 
armed  neutrality  by  a  declaration  published  on  the  27th  February, 
1801. 

Great  Britain  continued  to  temporize,  from  motives  of  policy,  with 
Prussia,  the  remaining  party  to  the  northern  alliance.  This  did  not 
however  prevent  the  Prussian  Cabinet  from  cooperating  with  Den- 
mark in  shutting  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe  and  the  Weser,  against 
British  commerce.  The  Danish  troops  occupied  Hamburg  and  Lubeck, 
whilst  Hanover  and  Bremen  were  seized  by  Prussia.  In  the  meantime, 
the  war  commenced  between  the  Baltic  Powers  and  Great  Britain  by 
the  battle  of  Copenhagen,  April  2,  1801,  the  result  of  which  pro- 
duced an  armistice  with  Denmark.  The  death  of  the  Emperor  Paul 
dissolved  the  confederacy  which  had  been  formed  under  his  auspices. 
The  armistice  with  Denmark  was  extended  to  Russia  and  Sweden 
and  the  Hanseatic  towns  were  evacuated  by  the  Danish  and  Prussian 
troops.  The  embargoes  were  raised  on  both  sides,  and  a  negotiation 
opened  at  St.  Petersburg  for  regulating  the  points  in  controversy. 

This  negotiation  resulted  in  the  signature  of  a  convention  between 
Great  Britain  and  Russia  on  the  5th/17th  of  June,  1801,  the  preamble 
of  which  stated  that: 

[Here  follows  the  text  of  the  treaty.] 

The  Court  of  Copenhagen  acceded  to  this  convention,  on  the  23d 
October,  1801,  and  that  of  Sweden,  on  the  18/30th  March,  1802. 
The  list  of  contraband  inserted  in  the  convention  differed  from  that 
contained  in  the  11th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1661  between  Great 
Britain  and  Sweden,  whilst  the  convention  reserved  the  special  stipu- 
lations of  the  contracting  Parties  with  other  Powers  relating  to  con- 
traband. In  order  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  differences  which 
had  arisen  relative  to  the  11th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1661,  a  conven- 
tion was  signed  at  London  on  the  25th  July,  1803,  between  Great 
Britain  and  Sweden,  by  which  the  list  of  contraband  contained  in  the 
convention  of  1801  was  augmented  with  the  addition  of  the  articles 
of  coined  money,  horses,  and  the  necessary  equipments  of  cavalry, 
ships  of  war,  and  all  manufactured  articles  serving  immediately  for 


256  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

their  equipment,  all  which  articles  were  subjected  to  confiscation.  It 
was  further  stipulated,  that  all  naval  stores,  the  produce  of  either 
country,  should  be  subject  to  the  right  of  preemption  by  the  belligerent, 
upon  condition  of  paying  an  indemnity  of  ten  per  centum  upon  the 
invoice  price,  or  current  value,  with  demurrage  and  expenses.  If 
bound  to  a  neutral  port,  and  detained  upon  suspicion  of  being  bound 
to  an  enemy's  port,  the  vessels  were  to  receive  an  indemnity,  unless 
the  belligerent  Government  chose  to  exercise  the  right  of  preemption ; 
in  which  case,  the  owners  were  to  be  entitled  to  receive  the  price 
which  the  goods  would  have  sold  for  at  their  destined  port,  with 
demurrage  and  expenses.^ 

We  have  thought  it  necessary  to  dwell  thus  minutely  upon  the  cir- 
cumstances which  attended  the  formation  of  the  convention  of  1801, 
because  it  may  justly  be  considered,  not  merely  as  forming  a  new 
conventional  law  between  the  contracting  Parties,  but  as  containing 
a  recognition  of  universal  preexisting  rights,  which  could  not  justly 
be  withheld  by  them  from  other  States.  The  avowed  object  of  the 
treaty  was  to  fix  and  declare  the  law  of  nations  upon  the  several  points 
which  had  been  so  much  contested ;  the  three  northern  Powers  yielding 
the  point  of  free  ships,  free  goods,  and  that  of  search  subject  to  a 
modification,  by  which  the  exercise  of  the  right  was  confined  to  public 
ships  of  war;  and  Great  Britain  yielding  to  all  of  them  those  relating 
to  the  colonial  and  coasting  trade,  to  blockades,  and  to  the  mode  of 
search ;  and  yielding  to  Russia,  moreover,  the  limitation  of  contra- 
band to  military  stores.  With  respect  to  the  question  of  convoys,  a 
question  not  comprehended  in  the  armed  neutrality  of  1780,  a  modifi- 
cation, satisfactory  to  the  northern  Powers,  was  yielded  by  Great 
Britain. 

That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the  convention  of  1801,  was 
made  evident  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  which  took  place  in  the 
British  House  of  Lords  on  the  12th  of  November,  1801,  on  the  pro- 
duction of  the  papers  relating  to  that  convention. 

On  this  occasion  Lord  Grenville,  who,  together  with  his  friend  Mr. 
Pitt,  had  retired  from  the  Ministry,  leaving  their  successors  to  make 
peace  with  France  and  the  northern  Powers,  declared  his  full  con- 
viction that  the  convention  essentially  impaired  the  system  of  maritime 
law  which  had  been  upheld  by  the  British  Government.  He  stated 
that  the  inadmissible  pretensions  of  the  Baltic  Powers  had  been  coun- 

^Post,  p.  620. 


WHEATON  257 

tenanced  by  the  weak  and  temporizing  policy,  which  Great  Britain 
had  pursued  towards  them,  in  the  last  years  of  the  war  of  the  Amer- 
ican revolution.  At  the  commencement  of  the  war  of  the  French  rev- 
olution, she  had  indeed  obtained,  by  negotiation  with  all  the  principal 
Governments  of  Europe,  a  renunciation  of  claims,  which  had  never 
been  advanced  but  with  purposes  hostile  to  her.  The  principles  in 
question  were,  indeed,  within  a  few  >ears  after  the  armed  neutrality 
of  1780,  renounced  by  almost  every  State  which  had  been  a  party 
to  that  league  ;^  and  in  some  of  the  official  communications  with  the 
Baltic  Powers,  during  the  war  with  France,  pretensions  were  ad- 
vanced, both  by  the  Empress  Catharine  and  her  successor,  which 
went  to  the  full  extent  of  the  ancient  maritime  law  of  Europe.^  The 
effects  of  this  change  of  sentiment  ensured  to  Great  Britain,  for 
several  years,  the  undisturbed  exercise  of  her  maritime  rights  in  those 
quarters  where  they  were  the  most  important,  both  to  her  own  inter- 
ests, and  to  those  of  the  common  cause  in  which  she  was  engaged. 
But  when  caprice  and  groundless  disgust  were  suffered  to  interrupt 
this  well-considered  system  of  policy  at  Petersburg,  the  former  preten- 
sions of  the  neutral  Powers  were  soon  renewed  with  increased  hos- 
tility; and  it  last  became  manifest,  upon  the  signature  of  the  con- 
vention of  armed  neutrality  of  1800,  that  unless  Great  Britain  could 
then  resolve  to  meet  the  necessity  of  the  case,  by  bringing  these  ques- 
tions to  a  distinct  and  final  settlement,  they  would  always  be  found 
to  impede  her  operations,  and  embarrass  her  exertions  in  every  future 
period  of  difficulty  or  danger. 

The  principal  objection  stated  by  Lord  Grenville  to  the  convention 
of  1801  was,  that  in  the  form  and  wording  of  its  different  articles, 
the  two  hostile  conventions  of  armed  neutrality  had  been  followed, 
with  a  scrupulous  and  servile  exactness,  wherever  they  could  be  made 
to  apply.  Great  Britain  had,  therefore,  negotiated  and  concluded  that 
treaty  on  the  basis  of  the  very  same  inadmissible  conventions,  which 
she  actually  went  to  war  for  the  purpose  of  annulling.     And  she  then 


^By  Russia,  in  her  war  with  Turkey  in  1787;  by  Sweden,  in  her  war  with 
Russia  in  1789;  by  Russia,  Prussia,  Austria,  .Spain,  Portugal  and  America,  in 
their  treaties  with  Great  Britain  during  the  first  war  of  the  French  revolu- 
tion ;  by  Denmark  and  Sweden,  in  their  instructions  issued  in  1793,  when  neu- 
tral ;  and  in  their  treaty  with  each  other  in  1794 ;  and  by  Prussia  again  in  her 
treaty  with  America  of  1799.  (Note  by  Lord  Grenville.) 

^See  Russian  declaration  to  Sweden.  July  30,  1793.  Instructions  to  Admiral 
Tchatchagoff,  July  24,  1793.  See  also  Russian  treaty  of  commerce  1797  with 
Great  Britain,  Article  10,  post,  p.  445. 


258  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

stood  in  the  face  of  Europe,  no  longer  as  resisting,  but  as  acceding 
to  the  treaties  of  armed  neutraHty,  with  modifications  indeed,  and 
changes  in  some  important  points,  but  sanctioning,  by  that  concession, 
the  general  weight  and  authority  of  transactions  which  she  had  before 
considered  as  gross  violations  of  public  law,  as  manifest  indications 
of  hostile  purpose,  and  as  sufficient  grounds  to  justify,  on  her  part, 
the  extremities  of  war  itself.  Whatever  principles  of  maritime  law 
might  thereafter  be  contested,  they  must  be  discussed  with  some  regard 
to  the  treaties  of  armed  neutrality.  Whatever  words  of  doubtful  inter- 
pretation were  transferred  from  those  treaties  into  the  convention 
(and  many  such  were  transferred)  must,  according  to  one  of  the  best 
rules  of  legitimate  construction,  be  explained  by  a  reference  to  the 
original  instrument,  where  they  were  first  introduced  into  the  code 
of  public  law. 

It  was,  therefore,  under  this  impression  that  they  must  proceed  to 
examine  the  convention  of  1801,  and  to  compare  it  with  those  claims, 
for  which  Great  Britain  determined,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
year,  that  it  was  necessary,  even  under  all  the  difficulties  of  that 
moment,  to  incur  the  additional  dangers  of  a  northern  war.  Those 
claims  were  included  in  five  separate  propositions  or  principles  of 
maritime  law,  every  one  of  which  the  neutral  league  of  1800,  had 
bound  the  contracting  Parties  in  that  engagement  to  resist  by  force : 
and  every  one  of  which  their  Lordships  had  agreed  with  the  Ministry 
of  that  day,  in  considering  as  essentially  necessary  to  be  maintained 
for  the  preservation  of  the  maritime  strength  of  Great  Britain,  and, 
consequently  for  the  means  even  of  her  domestic  security. 

The  propositions  were  as  follows : 

1.  That  it  is  not  lawful  to  neutral  nations  to  carry  on,  in  time  of 
war,  for  the  advantage,  or  on  the  behalf  of  one  of  the  belligerent 
Powers,  those  branches  of  its  commerce,  from  which  they  are  excluded 
in  time  of  peace. 

2.  That  every  belligerent  Power  may  capture  the  property  of  its 
enemies,  wherever  it  shall  be  met  with  on  the  high  seas,  and  may,  for 
that  purpose,  detain  and  bring  into  port  neutral  vessels  laden  wholly 
or  in  part  with  any  such  property. 

3.  That  under  the  description  of  contraband  of  war,  which  neutrals 
are  prohibited  from  carrying  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  the  law  of 
nations  (if  not  restrained  by  special  treaty),  includes  all  naval  as  well 
as  all  military  stores;  and  generally  all  articles  serving  principally, 


WHEATON  259 

according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  war,  to  afford  to  one  belligerent 
Power  the  instruments  and  means  of  annoyance  to  be  used  against 
the  other, 

4.  That  it  is  lawful  to  naval  Powers,  when  engaged  in  war,  to  block- 
ade the  ports  of  their  enemies  by  cruising  squadrons,  bona  fide  allotted 
to  that  service,  and  fairly  competent  to  its  execution.  That  such  block- 
ade is  valid  and  legitimate,  although  there  be  no  design  to  attack  or 
to  reduce  by  force  the  port,  fort,  or  arsenal  to  which  it  is  applied. 
And  that  the  fact  of  the  blockade,  coupled  with  due  notice  thereof  to 
the  neutral  Powers,  shall  affect,  not  only  vessels  actually  intercepted  in 
the  attempt  to  enter  the  blockaded  port,  but  those  ships  also,  which 
shall  elsewhere  be  met  with,  and  shall  be  found  to  have  been  destined 
to  such  port,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  fact  and  notice  of  its 
blockade. 

5.  That  the  right  of  visiting  and  examining  neutral  vessels  is  a 
necessary  consequence  of  these  principles ;  and  that  by  the  law  of 
nations  (when  unrestrained  by  treaty)  this  right  is  not  in  any  manner 
affected  by  the  presence  of  a  neutral  ship  of  war,  having  under  its 
convoy  merchant  ships,  either  of  its  own  nation  or  of  any  other 
country. 

The  first  of  these  principles  established  the  rule  under  which  the 
belligerent  refuses  to  neutrals  the  liberty  of  carrying  on,  during  war, 
those  parts  of  his  enemy's  trade  from  which  they  are  usually  excluded 
in  time  of  peace.  This  rule  had,  in  the  British  practice,  been  prin- 
cipally applied  to  the  coasting  and  colonial  trade  of  France.  From 
both  these  branches  of  her  trade,  France  had,  in  every  period  of  peace, 
excluded  all  vessels  but  her  own,  with  occasional  exceptions  only,  such 
as  more  strongly  proved  her  general  principle  of  exclusion.  But  in 
war  she  had  always  found  it  impossible  to  maintain  these  monopolies. 
Pressed,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  naval  superiority  of  Great  Britain, 
which  had  rendered  the  navigation  of  French  ships  unsafe,  and 
unable,  on  the  other  hand,  to  forego  the  resources  which  depend  en- 
tirely on  these  important  branches  of  her  commerce,  France  had  fre- 
quently endeavored,  under  these  special  circumstances,  to  open  both 
her  colonial  and  her  coasting  trade  to  neutral  vessels.  The  right  to 
carry  on  unmolested  both  these  branches  of  commerce  was  claimed 
by  the  northern  Powers  in  the  league  of  armed  neutrality  of  1780  and 
of  1800.  The  claim,  which  the  confederates  thus  asserted,  was,  so  far 
as  related  directly  to  the  coasting  trade,  expressed  in  the  3d  article 


260  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  the  convention  of  1800  as  follows :  "That  neutral  ships  may  navi- 
gate freely  from  port  to  port,  and  on  the  coasts  of  the  belligerent 
Powers."  The  convention  of  1801  had  adopted  very  nearly  the  same 
ejcpressions.  By  the  first  section,  of  what  there,  also,  stood  as  the 
third  article,  neutral  ships  are  permitted  "to  navigate  freely  to  the 
ports  and  upon  the  coasts  ef  the  belligerent  Powers."  And  in  the 
next  section  of  the  same  article,  corresponding  also  (though  with  a 
variation  respecting  enemy's  property)  with  a  clause  in  the  treaty  of 
armed  neutrality  of  1800,  it  was  expressly  declared,  that  "the  effects 
embarked  on  board  neutral  ships  shall  be  free,  with  the  exception  of 
contraband  of  war,  and  of  enemy's  property."  A  free  navigation  to 
the  ports,  and  upon  the  coasts,  of  any  country,  must  imply  the  liberty 
of  navigating  freely,  both  to  and  from  all  those  ports,  and  upon  every 
part  of  those  coasts.  If  any  limitation  of  this  liberty  had  been  in- 
tended, it  would  have  been  stated  in  the  exceptions,  specified  in  the 
convention,  to  the  otherwise  unrestrained  freedom  of  navigation  to 
the  en/emy's  ports,  which  neutrals  were  thenceforward  to  enjoy. 
Among  the  exceptions  thus  specified,  not  even  the  most  distant  refer- 
ence is  to  be  found  to  that  principle  respecting  the  coasting  trade 
which  Great  Britain  had  asserted.  The  liberty  of  sailing  freely  to  any 
hostile  port  was  plainly  conceded ;  but  it  was  not  even  intimated,  much 
less  declared,  that  this  permission  was  not  to  extend  to  ships  laden 
with  commodities  purchased  at  any  other  port  of  the  same  countr}'. 
Nor  would  it  be  easy  to  explain  in  any  other  sense  than  that  of  a 
deliberate  and  intentional  concession  of  the  coasting  trade,  the  admis- 
sion of  those  words  which  guarantee  to  neutrals  the  free  navigation, 
not  only  to  the  ports,  but  "upon  the  coasts  of  the  Powers  at  war."  It 
a  direct  trade  only  from  the  neutral  country  to  the  belhgerent  ports 
had  been  intended,  the  first  words  of  the  section  had  amply  secured  it. 
If  it  was  meant  to  permit  a  partial  and  successive  discharge  of  the 
different  articles  of  the  cargo,  at  different  ports,  this  also  was  secured 
by  the  general  and  unqualified  permission  to  sail  freely  to  those  ports. 
The  words  "upon  the  coasts"  v/ere  first  introduced  into  the  treaty  of 
armed  neutrality  in  1780.  They  were  there  employed  for  the  express 
pur|X)se  of  asserting  the  right  of  neutrals  to  carry  on  the  coasting 
trade  of  the  belligerents.  From  that  treaty  they  had  since  been  care- 
fully transcribed,  first  into  the  hostile  convention  of  1800,  and  now 
again  into  the  conciliatory  arrangement  of  1801,  to  which  they  were 
thencejforth  to  look  for  the  rule  of  maritime  law. 


WHEATON  261 

But  even  supposing  the  sense  of  the  convention  of  1801  was  am- 
biguous, as  to  the  coasting  trade,  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  it  had 
surrendered  to  neutrals  the  right  to  carry  on  the  enemy's  colonial 
trade.  The  only  relaxation  which  had  been  allowed  by  Great  Britain, 
during  the  war  with  France,  of  the  principle  asserted  by  her,  was  that 
contained  in  the  order  in  council  of  January  8,  1794  the  effect  of 
which  was  to  permit  neutral  vessels  to  carry  to  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  the  produce  of  the  French  colonies.  In  other  respects,  the  pre- 
vious order  of  the  6th  November,  1793  still  remained  in  full  force, 
unless  it  were  annulled  by  the  convention  of  1801.  The  second  section 
of  the  third  article  of  this  treaty  distinctly  provided,  that  all  "the  effects 
embarked  on  board  neutral  ships  shall  be  free,  with  the  exception  of 
contraband  of  war  and  enemy's  property ;  and  it  is  agreed  not  to  com- 
prise in  the  number  of  the  latter,  the  merchandise  of  the  produce, 
growth,  or  manufacture  of  countries  at  war,  which  should  have  been 
acquired  by  the  subjects  of  the  neutral  Power,  and  should  be  trans- 
ported for  their  account ;  which  merchandise  can  not  be  excepted,  in 
any  case,  from  the  freedom  granted  to  the  flag  of  the  said  Power." 
It  was  impossible  to  apply  these  words  to  any  other  case  than  that 
of  the  trade  in  the  produce  of  the  French  colonies,  become  the  prop- 
erty of  neutrals,  which  was  declared  to  be  free  in  neutral  vessels,  what- 
ever might  be  the  destination,  whether  to  a  neutral  country  or  even 
to  France  itself.^ 

As  to  the  British  claim,  in  respect  to  the  liability  to  capture  and 
confiscation  of  enemy's  property,  found  on  board  of  neutral  vessels, 
Lord  Grenville  admitted  that  it  was  fully  recognized  by  the  second 
section  of  the  third  article  of  the  convention,  which  implied  a  relin- 
quishment of  the  opposite  principle  of  free  ships,  free  goods  on  the 
part  of  the  northern  Powers. 

The  stipulation  in  the  third  section  of  the  same  article,  relating 
to   contraband   of   war,   must   be   considered   in   connection   with   the 


^It  should  be  observed  that  the  right  to  carry  on  the  colonial  trade  granted 
by  this  article  was  subsequently  limited  by  the  explanatory  declaration,  which 
had  already  been  signed  at  Moscow  at  the  time  when  Lord  Grenville  was 
speaking,  though  unknown  to  him,  by  which  it  was  agreed  that  "the  freedom 
of  commerce  and  navigation,  granted  by  the  said  article  to  the  subjects  of  a 
neutral  Power,  does  not  authorize  them  to  carry,  in  time  of  war,  the  produce 
or  merchandise  of  the  colonies  of  the  belligerent  Power,  direct  to  the  con- 
tinental possessions,  nor  znce  versa,  from  the  mother  country  to  the  enemy's 
colonies;  but  that  the  said  subjects  are,  however,  to  enjoy  the  same  advan- 
tages and  facilities  in  this  commerce  as  are  enjoyed  by  the  most  favored 
nation,  and  especially  by  the  United  States  of  America."    Post,  p.  606. 


262  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

second  separate  article  of  the  convention,  by  which  the  treaty  of 
commerce  of  the  10/21  February,  1797,  was  "confirmed  anew,  and  all 
its  stipulations  repeated  to  be  maintained  in  their  whole  extent."  The 
effect  of  this  article  was  to  reestablish  the  treaty  of  1797,  which  had, 
by  a  temporary  stipulation,  admitted  the  subjects  of  the  Russian 
Empire  to  carry,  in  their  own  ships,  naval  stores  to  the  enemy's  ports. 
The  treaty  itself  would  soon  expire,  but  the  privilege  it  granted  to 
Russia  of  carrying  naval  stores  would  not  expire  with  it.  The  article 
which  contained  that  stipulation  had  been  separated  from  all  commer- 
cial stipulations,  and  transferred  from  the  temporary  treaty  of  1797 
into  the  convention  of  1801,  which  was  expressly  declared  to  be  per- 
petual.^ The  third  and  fourth  sections  of  this  article,  which  treat  of 
contraband  and  of  blockaded  ports,  did  each  of  them  expressly  contain, 
not  the  concession  of  any  special  privilege  to  be  thenceforth  enjoyed 
by  the  contracting  Parties  only,  but  the  recognition  of  an  universal 
and  preexisting  right,  which,  as  such,  could  not  justly  be  refused  to 
any  other  independent  State.  The  third  section,  relating  to  contra- 
band of  war,  was,  in  all  its  parts  strictly  declaratory.  It  was  intro- 
duced by  a  separate  preamble,  announcing  that  its  object  was  to  prevent 
"all  ambiguity  or  misunderstanding  as  to  what  ought  to  be  considered 
as  contraband  of  war."  Conformably  with  this  intention,  the  con- 
tracting Parties  declared,  in  the  body  of  the  clause,  what  were  the 
only  commodities  which  they  acknowledge  as  such.  And  this  declar- 
ation was  followed  by  a  special  reserve,  that  "it  shall  not  prejudice 
their  particular  treaties  with  other  Powers." 

If  the  parties  had  intended  to  treat  of  this  question  only  as  it  related 
to  their  own  conduct  towards  each  other,  and  to  leave  it,  in  that 
respect,  on  the  same  footing  on  which  it  stood  before  the  formation 
of  the  hostile  league  of  1800,  all  mention  of  contraband  in  that  part 
of  the  convention  would  evidently  have  been  superfluous.  Nothing 
more  could,  in  that  case,  be  necessary  than  to  renew  the  former  treaties 
which  had  specified  the  lists  of  contraband ;  and  as  that  renewal  was 
expressly  stipulated  in  another  article  of  the  convention,  the  third 
section  must  be  considered  as  introduced  for  some  distinct  purpose. 
It  must  therefore  unquestionably  be  understood  in  that  larger  sense 
announced  in  its  preamble,  and  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  declara- 


lArticle  8.  The  principles  and  measures  adopted  by  the  present  act  shall 
be  alike  applicable  to  all  the  maritime  wars  in  which  one  of  the  two  Powers 
may  be  engaged  whilst  the  other  remains  neutral.  These  stipulations  shall 
consequently  be  regarded  as  permanent,  and  shall  serve_  for  a  constant  rule  to 
the  contracting  Powers  in  matters  of  commerce  and  navigation. 


WHEATON  263 

tion  which  it  contained.  It  must  be  taken  as  laying  down  a  general  rule 
for  all  future  discussions  with  any  Power  whatever,  on  the  subject  of 
military  or  naval  stores,  and  as  establishing  a  principle  of  law  which 
was  to  decide  universally  on  a  just  interpretation  of  the  technical  term 
of  contraband  of  war.  The  reservation,  made  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  section,  of  special  treaties  with  other  Powers,  was  manifestly  in- 
consistent with  any  more  limited  construction.  It  was  unnecessary  to 
declare  that  a  stipulation,  extending  only  to  the  Baltic  Powers,  should 
not  prejudice  the  subsisting  treaties  of  Great  Britain  with  other  na- 
tions. But  the  reserve  was  not  only  prudent,  but  necessary,  when  she 
undertook  to  lay  down  a  universal  principle,  applicable  to  all  her 
transactions  with  every  independent  State.  In  recognizing  a  claim 
of  preexisting  right,  and  in  establishing  a  new  interpretation  of  the  law 
of  nations,  it  was  unquestionably  of  extreme  importance  expressly  to 
reserve  the  more  favorable  practice  which  her  subsisting  treaties  had 
established  with  some  other  Powers. 

The  interpretation  given  to  the  term  contraband  of  war  in  the 
convention  was  drawn  exclusively  from  the  treaties  of  armed  neu- 
trality. In  the  league  of  1780,  the  Empress  of  Russia  had  thought 
proper  to  declare  that  her  engagements  with  Great  Britain  on  the 
subject  of  contraband  should  thenceforth  be  considered  as  the  invari- 
able rule  of  natural  and  universal  right.  The  convention  of  1801 
adopted  the  same  rule,  and  adopted  it  on  the  same  ground ;  enumerat- 
ing all  the  commodities  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  1797  between  Great 
Britain  and  Russia ;  declaring,  that  conformably  to  that  treaty,  the 
two  sovereigns  acknowledge  those  commodities  alone  as  contraband 
of  war.  Great  Britain  must,  in  all  future  discussions  with  other 
neutral  Powers,  abide  the  consequences  of  that  new  rule  of  public 
law  which  she  had  herself  thought  proper  to  proclaim.  She  had  pub- 
licly deserted  her  former  claim,  had  confessed  that  naval  stores  ought 
not  to  be  considered  as  contraband  of  war,  and  that  she  herself  no 
longer  acknowledged  them  as  such.  She  had  expressed  this  avowal 
in  the  very  words  originally  intended  for  the  purpose  of  making  it 
universal ;  and  had  inserted  it  in  her  treaties  with  those  very  Powers 
who  had  confederated  for  no  other  object  than  to  enforce  her  obser- 
vance of  it. 

The  stipulation  on  the  subject  of  blockaded  ports  was  also  tran- 
scribed, with  the  variation  of  a  single  word,  from  the  corresponding 
articles  of  the  two  conventions  of  armed  neutrality.     Those  articles 


264  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

had  declared,  in  substance,  that  no  port  should  be  considered  as  block- 
aded unless  where  the  Power  attacking  it  should  maintain  a  squadron 
constantly  stationed  before  it,  and  sufficiently  near  to  create  an  evident 
danger  of  entering.  In  the  convention  of  1801,  instead  of  the  words, 
"and  sufficiently  near,"  the  contracting  Parties  had  substituted,  "or  suffi- 
ciently near."  And  he  had  not  the  smallest  doubt  that  by  this  minute  ^ 
change,  trifling  and  unimportant  as  it  was,  they  intended  to  establish, 
in  their  full  extent,  the  principles  which  Great  Britain  had  main- 
tained on  this  great  question  of  maritime  blockade,  and  which  the 
article,  in  its  original  state,  as  it  stood  in  the  two  neutral  conventions 
was  intended  completely  to  subvert.  But  what  he  complained  of,  was 
the  glaring  impolicy  of  resting  so  important  a  principle  on  the  minute 
and  scarcely  perceptible  variation  of  a  single  article.  He  stated,  how- 
ever, two  other  objections  to  the  article: 

1.  That  when  it  spoke  of  the  Power  which  attacks  the  port,  it 
seems,  in  some  degree,  to  countenance  the  unfounded  assertion  that 
a  blockade  by  sea,  like  that  by  land,  required  an  actual  design  of  re- 
ducing or  conquering  the  particular  place  to  which  it  was  applied. 
Whereas  Great  Britain  maintained,  in  her  naval  wars  with  France, 
as  Holland  formerly  maintained  in  her  contest  with  Spain,  that  the 
blockade  of  one  or  more  of  the  enemy's  ports,  or  even  of  a  consid- 
erable extent  of  his  coasts,  may  lawfully  be  adopted  for  the  special 
purpose  of  intercepting  his  supplies,  in  order,  by  this  pressure,  to 
reduce  him  to  just  and  reasonable  conditions  of  peace. 

2.  The  second  objection  arose  from  the  very  nature  of  all  naval 
operations,  depending  so  much  on  the  variations  of  weather,  by  which 
a  squadron  blockading  a  hostile  port,  and  fully  equal  to  the  execution 
of  that  service,  might,  nevertheless,  occasionally  be  unable  to  remain 
either  stationary  before  the  port,  or  even  sufficiently  near  it  to  create 
at  all  times  an  evident  danger  of  entering.  And  if,  as  the  words  of  the 
article  imported,  the  blockade  was  understood  to  continue  so  long 
only  as  that  danger  actually  existed,  and  was  on  the  other  hand  to  be 
considered  as  being  raised  as  often  as  the  danger  ceased,  even  if  for 
the  shortest  interval,  the  utmost  confusion  must  inevitably  arise  in 
all  cases,  but  particularly  in  those  of  neutral  ships  met  with  at  a  dis- 
tance from  the  blockaded  port,  but  destined  to  it.  It  might  indeed 
be  asserted,  without  the  least  exaggeration,  that  even  giving  the  fullest 
weight  to  that  minute  verbal  change,  on  which  so  much  was  made  to 


WHEATON  265 

depend,  a  strict  adherence  to  the  letter  of  that  stipulation  must  utterly 
destroy  the  whole  British  system  of  blockade  by  cruising  squadrons. 

Lord  Grenville  then  proceeded  to  consider  the  stipulations  of  the 
convention  as  it  respects  the  visiting  and  examining  neutral  vessels 
under  convoy.  The  claim  of  the  neutral  league  of  1800  confined  this 
examination  to  a  bare  perusal  of  the  papers  of  the  neutral  ships,  which 
papers  were,  for  that  purpose,  to  be  communicated  to  the  belligerent 
by  the  neutral  officer  on  board  his  own  vessel.  Exactly  the  same  pro- 
ceeding had  been  stipulated  in  the  convention  of  1801,  and  it  was 
added,  in  both  treaties,  that  if  the  papers  so  communicated  should  be 
found  to  be  regular,  no  further  search  should  take  place.  An  excep- 
tion, however,  was  subjoined  in  that  of  1801,  which  constituted  the  only 
practical  difference  on  the  subject  between  the  two  conventions.  It 
was  not,  as  before,  laid  down  absolutely,  that  no  further  search  should, 
in  any  case,  take  place,  but  that  none  should  take  place  "unless  some 
valid  motive  of  suspicion  shall  exist."  Good  faith  forbade  its  being 
contended  that  the  right,  from  which  the  belligerent  had  agreed  to 
abstain,  except  when  some  valid  ground  of  suspicion  should  exist, 
might  still  be  indiscriminately  exercised  at  his  discretion.  As  the 
practice  had  before  stood,  the  inquiry  into  the  facts  of  the  case  pre- 
ceded all  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  them.  The  suspicion  arose 
from  the  search,  and  the  detention  of  the  ship  was  its  just  and  natural 
effect.  As  the  law  would  stand  under  the  convention,  suspicion  must 
precede  inquiry,  and  very  few  cases  were  likely  to  occur,  where  any 
valid  ground  of  suspicion  respecting  a  neutral  ship  could  bona  ftde 
exist  before  the  search.  It  was  then  but  too  manifest  that,  while  they 
had,  in  words,  established  the  right  of  visiting  ships  under  neutral  con- 
voy, they  had,  in  fact,  so  limited  and  circumscribed  the  practice,  as 
utterly  to  renounce  every  beneficial  purpose  to  which  it  could,  by  any 
possibility,  be  applied.^ 

In  order  to  complete  our  view  of  the  controversy  growing  out  of 
the  armed  neutrality,  it  is  only  necessary  to  add  that  both  in  the  pre- 
liminary treaty  of  peace  between  France  and  Great  Britain  signed  in 
1801,  and  in  the  definitive  treaty  concluded  at  Amiens  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  a  total  silence  was  observed  respecting  the  disputed  points 
of  maritime  law.     On  the  rupture  which  took  place  between  Great 


^Speech  delivered  by  Lord  Grenville  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Nov.  13,  1801, 
Parliamentary  History  of  England,  vol.  36,  pp.  200-255.  For  the  very  lame 
and  inconclusive  replies  made  by  other   speakers,  see  ibid.,  pp.  256-263. 


266  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Britain  and  Russia  in  consequence  of  the  attack  upon  Copenhagen  and 
capture  of  the  Danish  fleet,  the  Russian  Government  published  on  the 
26th  October,  1807,  a  declaration  forever  annulling  the  maritime  con- 
vention of  1801,  and  proclaiming  "anew  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality,  that  monument  of  the  wisdom  of  the  Empress  Catharine," 
and  engaging  never  to  derogate  from  this  system. 

The  British  Government  published,  on  the  18th  December,  an  answer 
to  this  declaration  proclaiming  "anew  the  principles  of  maritime  law, 
against  which  was  directed  the  armed  neutrality  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Empress  Catharine." 

It  was  stated  that  these  principles  had  been  recognized  by  all  the 
Powers  of  Europe  who  framed  that  league,  and  no  one  more  strictly 
conformed  to  them  than  Russia  herself  under  the  reign  of  the  Em- 
press Catharine.  It  was  the  right,  as  well  as  the  duty  of  His  Majesty 
to  maintain  these  principles,  which  he  was  determined  to  do  against 
every  confederacy  with  the  assistance  of  divine  Providence.  The 
subsequent  treaties  of  peace  and  of  commerce  between  the  two  Powers 
are  totally  silent  upon  the  disputed  points.^ 

The  treaties  of  peace  signed  at  Paris  in  1814-15,  between  France 
and  the  allied  Powers,  are  equally  silent  upon  the  contested  questions 
of  maritime  law. 


WOOLSEY:  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  International  Law,  de- 
signed as  an  aid  in  teaching  and  in  historical  studies  by  Theodore 
Dwight  Woolsey.  Sixth  edition  revised  and  enlarged  by  Theodore 
Salisbury  Woolsey.     New  York,  1897. 

Theodore  Dwight  Woolsey.  American  publicist  and  educationalist;  born  in 
1801;  died  in  1889;  president  of  Yale  College  from  1846  to  1871;  member  of  the 
Institute  of  International  Law ;  author  of  works  on  Greek  literature,  law,  re- 


^Martens,  Manuel  diplomatique  sur  les  droits  des  neutres  sur  mer,  p.  69. 
The  questions  involved  in  the  controversy,  respecting  the  armed  neutrality, 
became  the  subject  of  polemic  discussion  by  various  public  jurists,  both  in 
belligerent  and  neutral  countries.  Among  these  works  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable was  the  examination  of  the  judgment  of  Sir  W.  Scott  in  the  case 
of  the  Swedish  convoy  by  Professor  J.  F.  VV.  Schlegel  published  at  Copen- 
hagen in  1800.  It  was  replied  to  by  Dr.  Croke  in  his  remarks  upon  Mr. 
Schlegel's  work  upon  the  visitation  of  neutral  vessels  under  convoy,  London, 
1801. 


WOOLSEY  267 

ligion,  and  social  economy.  He  contributed  largely  to  periodicals  and  wrote 
numerous  articles  on  subjects  bearirig  on  international  law,  among  others,  Recent 
Aspects  of  International  Lazv,  1856,  and  Right  of  Search,  1858,  both  of  which 
appeared  in  the  New  Englandcr,  a  review  founded  by  him.  His  most  important 
contribution  to  the  science  of  international  law  is  his  Introduction  to  the  study 
of  international  law,  designed  as  an  aid  in  teaching  and  in  historical  studies, 
1860,  which  has  run  through  a  number  of  editions. 


Page  2/0. — The  position  of  the  neutral  gives  rise  to  rights,  which 
may  be  defended  against  attempted  aggressions  of  a  belligerent  by 
armed  forces,  and  several  neutrals  may  unite  for  this  purpose.  This 
:s  called  an  armed  neutrality,  of  which  the  two  leagues  of  the  Baltic 
Powers  in  1780  and  1800  furnish  the  most  noted  instances.  But  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  the  term  neutrality  can  be  applied  to  these 
leagues,  which  not  only  armed  themselves  for  self-defense,  but  laid 
down  principles  of  public  law  against  the  known  maxims  of  one  of 
the  belligerents,  which  thev  were  ready  to  make  good  by  force.  (Sees. 
189,  209.) 

Page  ^lo. — The  armed  neutrality  set  on  foot  in  1780  was  a  plan  to 
escape  from  the  severe  but  ancient  way  of  dealing  with  neutrals 
which  Great  Britain  enforced,  by  advancing  certain  milder  principles 
of  international  law.  These  were  that  neutral  vessels  had  a  right  to 
sail  in  freedom  from  harbor  to  harbor  and  along  the  coasts  of  bellig- 
erents ;  that  the  property  of  enemies  not  contraband  of  war  on  neu- 
tral ships  should  be  free ;  that  a  port  is  blockaded  only  when  evident 
danger  attends  on  the  attempt  to  run  into  it ;  that  by  these  principles 
the  detention  and  condemnation  of  neutral  ships  should  be  detennined ; 
and  that,  when  such  vessels  had  been  unjustly  used,  besides  repara- 
tion for  loss,  satisfaction  should  be  made  to  the  neutral  sovereign. 
The  parties  to  this  league  engaged  to  equip  a  fleet  to  maintain  their 
principle,  and  were  to  act  in  concert.  These  parties  were,  besides 
Russia,  which  announced  the  system  to  the  Powers  at  war,  and  in- 
vited other  neutrals  to  cooperation,  Denmark,  Sweden,  the  Dutch 
provinces,  Prussia,  Austria,  Portugal,  and  Naples.  Two  of  the  bellig- 
erents, France  and  Spain,  concurred,  but  the  other,  England,  replied 
that  she  stood  by  the  law  of  nations  and  her  treaties.  England  had 
reason  to  complain  of  this  league,  because  some  of  the  parties,  then  at 
peace  with  her, — Sweden  and  Denmark, — were  at  the  time  held  by 
treaty  with  her  to  just  the  contrary  principle;  while  others  had  even 


268  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

punished  neutral  ships  for  what  they  now  claimed  to  be  a  neutral 
right.  The  first  armed  neutrality  did  little  more  than  announce  a 
principle,  for  no  collision  took  place  between  them  and  Great  Britain; 
but  it  formed  an  epoch,  because  in  no  previous  arrangement  between 
Christian  States  had  the  rule,  "free  ships,  free  goods,"  been  separated 
from  the  opposite,  "unfree  or  hostile  ships,  hostile  goods."  In  the 
peace  of  Versailles,  which  in  1783  terminated  the  war  between  Eng- 
land and  France  growing  out  of  our  revolution,  the  two  Powers  re- 
turned to  the  stipulations  of  the  peace  of  Utrecht  which  have  been 
mentioned  above. 

Page  ^12. — Twenty  years  after  the  first  armed  neutrality  a  second 
was  formed,  to  which  Russia,  the  Scandinavian  Powers,  and  Prussia 
were  parties ;  and  which  derived  the  pretext  for  its  formation  from 
differences  of  opinion  concerning  convoy  (Sec.  209),  as  well  as  from 
alleged  violations  of  neutral  rights  by  English  cruisers  in  the  case  of 
a  Swedish  vessel.  The  platform  of  this  alliance  embraced  much  the 
same  principles  as  that  of  1780,  together  with  new  claims  concerning 
convoy.  But  nothing  was  gained  by  it  saving  some  trifling  conces- 
sions from  Great  Britain,  while  Russia,  Demnark  and  Sweden  ere 
long  gave  in  their  adherence  to  the  English  views  of  neutral  liabilities. 

Page  jdz. — A  search  at  sea  is  exceedingly  annoying,  not  only  be- 
cause it  may  afreet  an  innocent  party,  and  may  cause  expensive  de- 
lays, but  also  because  those  who  are  concerned  in  it  are  often  insolent 
and  violent.  What  can  be  expected  of  a  master  of  a  privateer,  or  of 
an  inferior  officer  in  the  navy,  urged  perhaps  by  strong  suspicion  of 
the  neutral's  guilt,  but  that  he  will  do  his  office  in  the  most  offensive 
and  irritating  manner?  To  prevent  these  annoyances,  Governments 
have  sometimes  arranged  with  one  another,  that  the  presence  of  a 
public  vessel,  or  convoy,  among  a  fleet  of  merchantmen,  shall  be  evi- 
dence that  the  latter  are  engaged  in  a  lawful  trade.  But  neutrals 
have  gone  farther  than  this,  they  have  claimed,  without  previous 
treaty,  that  a  national  ship  convoying  their  trading  vessels  shall  be  a 
sufficient  guaranty  that  no  unlawful  traffic  is  on  foot.  The  beginnings 
of  such  a  claim  proceeded  from  the  Dutch  in  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth centur>%  but  the  first  earnest  and  concerted  movement  on  the 
part  of  neutrals  for  this  end,  was  made  near  the  end  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, at  which  time,  also,  the  principal  maritime  Powers,  excepting 
Great  Britain,  made  treaties  establishing  the  right  of  convoy  between 
themselves.     From  this  starting  point,  neutrals  went  on  to  claim  that 


WOOLSEY  269 

this  ought  to  be  regarded  as  a  right  forming  a  part  of  the  law  of 
nations,  and  to  employ  force,  when  Great  Britain  exercised,  without 
respect  to  the  convoy,  the  right  of  search  on  the  old  plan.  In  1798, 
the  convoy  of  a  fleet  of  Swedish  merchantmen,  having,  in  conformity 
with  instructions,  taken  a  British  officer  out  of  one  of  the  vessels  of 
commerce,  the  whole  fleet  was  captured,  and  Sir  William  Scott,  in  the 
British  admiralty  court,  decided  that  the  act  of  violence  subjected  all 
the  vessels  to  condemnation.^  Not  long  after  this,  in  1800,  a  Danish 
frigate  in  the  Mediterranean,  acting  as  a  convoy,  fired  on  the  boats 
sent  from  British  frigates  to  examine  the  merchant  vessels  under  its 
protection.  The  act  was  repeated  in  July  of  the  same  year  by  another 
frigate  of  the  same  nation,  then  neutral  but  ill-affected  towards  Eng- 
land. The  frigate,  named  the  Freya,  with  six  trading  vessels  under 
its  care,  met  six  British  ships  of  war,  when  the  refusal  of  a  demand 
to  search  the  merchantmen  led  to  acts  of  hostility,  which  resulted  in 
the  surrender  of  the  Danish  national  vessel.  In  consequence,  how- 
ever, of  negotiations  between  the  two  Governments,  the  ship  was  re- 
leased, and  it  was  agreed,  on  the  part  of  the  Danes,  that  the  right  of 
convoy  should  not  be  exercised,  until  some  arrangement  should  be 
made  touching  this  point. 

These  collisions  were  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  formation  of  the 
second  armed  neutrality  of  1800.  In  that  league  the  contracting 
Powers  (Russia,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Prussia),  among  other 
stipulations,  agreed  that  search  should  be  prevented  by  a  declaration 
of  officers  in  charge  of  a  convoy  to  the  effect  that  the  ships  under  his 
charge  had  no  contraband  goods  on  board. 

The  armed  neutrality  was  succeeded  by  retaliatory  embargoes,  and 
on  the  2d  of  April,  1801.  the  battle  of  Copenhagen  prostrated  the 
power  of  Denmark.  Conventions  were  soon  afterwards  effected  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  northern  Powers — i.  e.,  Russia,  Sweden, 
and  Denmark,  without  Prussia — ^by  which  it  was  agreed  that  goods 
on  neutral  vessels,  except  contraband  of  war  and  enemy's  property, 
should  be  free,  and  in  which  the  following  arrangements  regarding 
convoy  received  the  assent  of  the  parties:  (1)  That  the  right  of  visit, 
exercised  by  belHgerents  on  vessels  of  the  parties  to  the  armed  neu- 
trality, shall  be  confined  to  public  vessels  of  war,  and  never  committed 
to  privateers.     (2)  That  trading  vessels  of  any  of  the  contractants, 

iCase  of  the  Maria,  1  Robinson's  Rep.  340-379.     Post,  p.  446. 


270  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

under  convoy,  shall  lodge  with  the  commander  of  the  convoying  vessel 
their  passports  and  certificates  or  sea-letters,  drawn  up  according  to  a 
certain  form.  (3)  That  when  such  vessel  of  convoy  and  a  belligerent 
vessel  meet,  they  shall  ordinarily  be  beyond  the  distance  of  cannon- 
shot  from  one  another,  and  that  the  belligerent  commander  shall  send 
a  boat  to  the  neutral  vessel,  whereupon  proofs  shall  be  exhibited  both 
that  the  vessel  of  convoy  has  a  right  to  act  in  that  capacity,  and  that 
the  visiting  vessel  in  truth  belongs  to  the  public  navy.  (4)  This  done, 
there  shall  be  no  visit,  if  the  papers  are  according  to  rule.  Otherwise, 
the  neutral  commander,  on  request  of  the  other,  shall  detain  the  mer- 
chantmen for  visits,  which  shall  be  made  in  the  presence  of  officers 
selected  from  the  two  ships  of  war.  (5)  If  the  commander  of  the 
belligerent  vessels  finds  that  there  is  reason  in  any  case  for  further 
search,  on  notice  being  given  of  this,  the  other  commander  shall  order 
an  officer  to  remain  on  board  the  vessel  so  detained,  and  assist  in 
examining  into  the  cause  of  the  detention.  Such  vessel  is  to  be  taken 
to  the  nearest  convenient  port  belonging  to  the  belligerent,  where  the 
ulterior  search  shall  be  conducted  with  all  possible  despatch.^ 


^See    Woolsey,    Introduction    to    the    Study    of    International   Law,   6th    ed., 
Appendix  ii,  under  1800. 


PART  II 
OFFICIAL    DOCUMENTS 


OFFICIAL    DOCUMENTS    BEARING   ON    THE  ARMED 
NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 


Declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  regarding  the  Principles  of 
Armed  Neutrality,  addressed  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  February  28,  1780  (old  style)  ^ 

The  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  so  fully  manifested  her  sentiments 
of  justice,  equity  and  moderation,  and  gave  such  evident  proofs,  during 
the  course  of  the  war  she  had  to  wage  against  the  Ottoman  Porte,  of 
the  regard  she  has  for  the  rights  of  neutrahty  and  the  Hberty  of 
universal  commerce,  that  all  Europe  can  testify  thereto.  This  conduct, 
as  well  as  the  principles  of  impartiality  that  she  has  displayed  during 
the  present  war,  justly  inspired  her  with  the  fullest  confidence  that 
her  subjects  would  peaceably  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  industry  and 
the  advantages  belonging  to  a  neutral  nation.  Experience  has  never- 
theless proved  the  contrary.  Neither  the  above-mentioned  considera- 
tions, nor  regard  for  the  universal  law  of  nations,  have  prevented  the 
subjects  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  from  being  often  molested  in  their 
navigation,  and  stopped  in  their  operations,  by  those  of  the  belligerent 
Powers. 

These  hindrances  to  the  liberty  of  trade  in  general,  and  to  that  of 
Russia  in  particular,  are  of  a  nature  to  excite  the  attention  of  all 
neutral  nations.  The  Empress  finds  herself  obliged  therefore  to  free 
it  by  all  the  means  compatible  with  her  dignity  and  the  well-being  of 
her  subjects;  but,  before  she  puts  this  into  execution,  and  with  a 
sincere  intention  to  prevent  any  future  infringements,  she  thought  it 
but  just  to  publish  to  all  Europe  the  principles  she  means  to  follow, 
which  are  the  most  proper  to  prevent  any  misunderstanding,  or  any 
occurrences  that  may  occasion  it.  Her  Imperial  Majesty  does  it  with 
the  more  confidence,  as  she  finds  these  principles  imbedded  in  the 
primitive  law  of  peoples  on  which  every  nation  is  entitled  to  rely,  and 
which  the  belligerent  Powers  can  not  ignore  without  violating  the  laws 
of  neutrality,  and  without  disavowing  the  maxims  they  have  adopted, 
notably,  in  different  treaties  and  public  engagements. 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  641. 


274  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

They  are  reducible  to  the  following  points: 

(1)  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at 
war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band merchandise. 

(3)  That,  as  to  the  specification  of  the  above-mentioned  merchan- 
dise, the  Empress  holds  to  what  is  enumerated  in  the  10th  and  11th 
articles  of  her  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,^  extending  her 
obligations  to  all  the  Powers  at  war. 

(4)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has 
stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render 
access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(5)  That  these  principles  shall  serve  as  a  rule  for  proceedings  and 
judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

Her  Imperial  Majesty,  in  making  these  points  public,  does  not  hesi- 
tate to  declare,  that  to  maintain  them,  and  to  protect  the  honor  of  her 
flag,  the  security  of  the  trade  and  navigation  of  her  subjects,  she  is 
preparing  a  considerable  part  of  her  maritime  forces.  This  measure 
will  not,  however,  influence  the  strict  neutrality  she  does  observe,  and 
will  observe  so  long  as  she  is  not  provoked  and  forced  to  pass  the 
bounds  of  moderation  and  perfect  impartiality.  It  is  only  in  this 
extremity  that  her  fleet  will  have  orders  to  go  wherever  honor,  interest, 
and  need  may  require. 

In  giving  this  solemn  assurance  with  the  usual  openness  of  her 
character,  the  Empress  can  not  do  other  than  promise  herself  that  the 
belligerent  Powers,  convinced  of  the  sentiments  of  justice  and  equity 
which  animate  her,  will  contribute  towards  the  accomplishment  of 
these  salutary  purposes,  which  manifestly  tend  to  the  good  of  all 
nations  and  to  the  advantage  even  of  those  at  war ;  and  that  in  conse- 
quence they  will  furnish  their  admiralties  and  commanding  officers 
with  instructions  comformable  to  the  above-mentioned  principles, 
founded  upon  the  primitive  laws  of  people,  and  so  often  adopted  in 
their  conventions. 

1  Articles  10  and  11  of  this  treaty  are  embodied  in  the  British  instructions  to 
the  commanders  of  war-ships  and  privateers  of  November  20.  1780,  ppst,  p.  329. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  275 

Russian  Memorandum  containing  a  Project  for  an  Armed  Neu- 
trality, presented  to  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands, 
April  3,  1780^ 

High  and  Mighty  Lords : 

The  underwritten  Envoy  Extraordinary  from  the  Empress  of  all 
the  Russias  has  the  honor  to  communicate  to  you  a  copy  of  the  declar- 
ation which  the  Empress  his  sovereign  has  made  to  the  belHgerent 
Powers.^  Your  High  Mightinesses  may  look  upon  this  communication 
as  a  particular  mark  of  the  attention  of  the  Empress  for  the  Republic, 
which  is  equally  interested  in  the  reasons  which  occasioned  the  declar- 
ation. He  has  further  orders  to  declare  to  Your  High  Mightinesses,  in 
the  name  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  that  how  desirous  soever  she  may 
be  on  the  one  hand  to  maintain  the  strictest  neutrality  during  the 
present  war,  yet  Her  Majesty  is  as  determined  to  take  the  most  effica- 
cious means  to  support  the  honor  of  the  Russian  flag,  the  security  of 
the  trade,  and  the  navigation  of  her  subjects,  and  not  suffer  either  to 
be  hurt  by  any  of  the  belligerent  Powers ;  that,  in  order  to  prevent 
on  this  occasion  any  misunderstanding  or  false  interpretation,  she 
thought  it  necessary  to  specify  in  the  declaration  the  limits  of  a  free 
trade,  and  what  is  called  contraband.  That,  if  the  definition  of  the 
former  is  founded  upon  the  clearest  notions  of  natural  right,  the  latter 
is  literally  taken  from  the  treaty  of  commerce  between  Russia  and 
Great  Britain,  by  which  Her  Imperial  Majesty  means  incontestably 
to  prove  her  good  faith  and  impartiality  towards  each  party ;  that  she 
consequently  apprehends  that  the  other  trading  Powers  will  immediately 
come  into  her  way  of  thinking  relative  to  neutrality. 

From  these  considerations.  Her  Imperial  Majesty  has  ordered  the 
underwritten  to  invite  Your  High  Mightinesses  to  make  a  common 
cause  with  her,  as  such  an  union  may  serve  to  protect  the  trade  and 
navigation,  and  at  the  same  time  observe  a  strict  neutrality,  and  to 
communicate  to  Your  High  Mightinesses  the  regulation  she  has  in 
consequence  taken. 

The  same  invitation  has  been  made  to  the  Courts  of  Copenhagen, 
Stockholm  and  Lisbon,  in  order  that  by  the  united  endeavors  of  all 
the  neutral  maritime  Powers,  a  natural  system,  founded  on  justice, 
might  be  established  and  legalized  in  favor  of  the  trade  of  neutral 


^Annual  Register,  1780,  p.  346.     A  similar  proposal  was  made  to  the  Courts  of 
Copenhagen,  Stockholm  and  Lisbon. 
-Ante,  p.  273. 


276  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

nations,    which   by   its    real   advantages   might   serve    for  a    rule    for 
future  ages. 

The  underwritten  does  not  doubt  but  your  High  Mightinesses  will, 
without  delay,  take  the  invitation  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  into  con- 
sideration, and  concur  in  immediately  making  a  declaration  to  the 
belligerent  Powers,  founded  on  the  same  principles  as  that  of  the 
Empress,  explaining  at  the  same  time  the  nature  of  a  free  and  con- 
traband trade,  conformable  to  their  respective  treaties  with  the  other 
nations. 

For  the  rest,  the  underwritten  has  the  honor  to  assure  your  High 
Mightinesses,  that  if,  to  establish  such  a  glorious  and  advantageous 
system  upon  the  most  solid  basis,  they  wished  to  open  a  negotiation 
with  the  above-mentioned  neutral  Powers  on  this  subject,  the  Empress, 
his  sovereign,  is  ready  to  join  you. 

Your  Mightinesses  will  easily  see  the  necessity  of  accelerating  your 
resolutions  upon  objects  of  such  importance  and  advantage  for  human- 
ity in  general.  The  underwritten  begs  of  you  to  give  him  a  speedy 
answer. 

Demetri  Prince  Gallitzin 

Hague,  ^4f)ril  i,  r/So. 


Explanation  requested  of  the  Court  of  Russia  by  the  Court  of  Swe- 
den relative  to  the  Project  for  an  Armed  Neutrality,  April  5, 
1780^ 

Article  1 

How  and  in  what  manner  shall  a  reciprocal  protection  and  mutual 
assistance  be  given  ? 

Article  2 

Shall  each  particular  Power  be  obliged  to  protect  the  general  com- 
merce of  all,  or  may  it  at  the  same  time  employ  a  part  of  its  armament 
in  the  protection  of  its  own  particular  commerce? 

^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2cl  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  170. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  277 


Article  3 


If  several  of  these  combined  squadrons  should  meet,  or,  for  exam- 
ple, one  or  more  of  their  vessels,  w^hat  shall  be  the  rule  of  their  con- 
duct tov^ards  each  other,  and  how  far  shall  the  neutral  protection 
extend  ? 

Article  4 

It  seems  essential  to  agree  upon  the  manner  in  which  representations 
shall  be  made  to  the  Powers  at  war,  if,  notwithstanding  our  measures, 
their  ships  of  war,  or  armed  vessels,  should  continue  to  interrupt  our 
commerce  in  any  manner.  Must  these  remonstrances  be  made  in  the 
general  name  of  the  united  Powers,  or  shall  each  particular  Power 
plead  its  own  cause  only? 

Article  5 

Lastly,  it  appears  essentially  necessary  to  provide  against  this  pos- 
sible event,  where  one  of  the  united  Powers,  seeing  itself  driven  to 
extremities  against  any  of  the  Powers  actually  at  war,  should  claim 
the  assistance  of  the  allies  in  this  convention  to  do  itself  justice.  In 
what  manner  can  this  be  best  concerted?  A  circumstance  which 
equally  requires  a  stipulation,  that  the  reprisals  in  that  case  shall  not 
be  at  the  will  of  such  party  injured,  but  that  the  common  voice  shall 
decide :  otherwise  an  individual  Power  might  at  its  pleasure  draw  the 
rest,  against  their  inclinations  and  interests,  into  disagreeable  extremi- 
ties, or  break  the  whole  leagiie  and  reduce  matters  into  their  original 
state,  which  would  render  the  whole  fruitless  and  of  no  effect. 


Declaration  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  States-General  of  the 
Netherlands,  withdrav^ring  All  Treaty  Privileges,  April  17,  1780^ 

Since  Great  Britain  was  drawn  into  an  involuntary  war  with  France 
and  Spain,  the  King's  Ambassador  to  the  States-General  of  the  United 
Provinces  has  presented  a  number  of  memoranda  demanding  the  assist- 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  173. 


278  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ance  stipulated  by  treaties.  Although  these  representations  were  reiter- 
ated in  the  most  urgent  manner  in  the  memorandum  of  March  21, 
they  have  met  with  no  response,  and  their  High  Mightinesses  have 
displayed  no  intention  to  subscribe  to  them. 

By  thus  deferring  the  fulfilment  of  their  most  positive  engagements, 
they  are  deserting  the  alliance  which  has  existed  so  long  between  the 
Crown  of  Great  Britain  and  the  RepubHc,  and  are  placing  themselves 
on  the  level  of  neutral  Powers  that  are  not  bound  to  this  country  by 
any  treaty.  I'he  principles  of  wisdom  and  equity,  consequently,  re- 
quire the  King  to  consider  the  States  no  longer  in  any  other  relation 
than  the  distant  one  in  which  they  have  placed  themselves,  and  His 
Majesty,  having  taken  this  subject  under  consideration,  has,  with  the 
advice  of  his  Council,  deemed  it  proper  to  order  the  immediate  carry- 
ing out  of  the  measures  which  were  formally  set  forth  in  the  memo- 
randum of  March  21,^  last,  and  which  had  previously  been  hinted  to 
Count  van  Welderen,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
Republic,  in  a  verbal  declaration  by  Lord  Stormont,  one  of  the  Secre- 
taries of  State,  nearly  two  months  before  the  delivery  of  the  afore- 
said memorandum. 

For  these  reasons,  the  King,  with  the  advice  of  his  Council,  declares 
that  the  subjects  of  the  United  Provinces  shall  henceforth  be  consid- 
ered on  the  footing  of  those  of  neutral  Powers,  which  have  no  treaty 
privileges.  By  these  presents.  His  Majesty  suspends  provisionally  and 
until  further  orders  all  stipulations  specifically  intended  to  favor  in 
time  of  war  the  freedom  of  navigation  and  commerce  of  tlie  subjects 
of  the  States-General,  as  set  forth  in  the  various  treaties  in  force 
between  His  Majesty  and  the  Republic,  and  particularly  in  the  marine 
treaties  concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  Provinces  at 
London  on  December  1,  1674.^ 

His  Majesty,  animated  by  a  feeling  of  humanity,  desiring  neverthe- 
less to  spare  the  interests  of  individuals,  and  not  seeking  to  cause  them 
loss  by  an  act  taking  them  unawares,  declares,  moreover,  with  the 
advice  of  his  Council,  that  the  present  ordinance  shall  not  go  into 
effect  until  the  following  dates,  to  wit: 

In  the  north  seas  and  channel  twelve  days  from  this  date. 

From  the  channel,  the  British  seas  and  the  north  seas  to  the  Canary 
Islands  inclusive,  both  in  the  ocean  and  in  the  Mediterranean,  the 
time  will  be  six  weeks  from  the  date  of  these  presents. 


^Hennings,  Sammluru/,  vol.   1,  p.  52. 
^Dumont,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  282. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  279 

The  period  will  be  three  months  from  the  Canary  Islands  to  the 
equinoctial  line  or  equator. 

Finally,  it  will  be  six  months,  for  the  waters  situated  beyond  the 
equator,  and  in  general  in  all  other  quarters  of  the  world  without 
exception,  or  without  a  more  specific  determination  of  time  or  place. 

Rescript  added  to  the  Foregoing  Order 

Inasmuch  as,  in  accordance  with  our  order  in  Council,  dated  April 
17,  1780,  the  various  treaties  granting  special  privileges  to  subjects 
of  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  in  the  matter  of  their 
commerce  and  navigation  in  time  of  war,  are  suspended,  and  as  the 
subjects  of  the  States-General  are  to  be  considered  on  the  same  footing 
as  those  of  other  neutral  States  having  no  treaty  privileges,  until  it 
shall  please  us  formally  to  signify  the  contrary,  the  commanders  of 
our  war-ships  and  those  of  all  ships  and  vessels  which  have  letters 
of  marque  and  of  reprisal  are  authorized  by  these  presents  to  seize 
and  detain  all  ships  and  vessels  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  States- 
General  whenever  they  are  found  to  have  on  board  any  effects  belong- 
ing to  the  enemies  of  His  Majesty  or  effects  that  are  considered  by 
the  general  law  of  nations  as  contraband  of  war. 


Reply  of  the  King  of  Spain  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  April  18,  1780^ 

The  King,  being  informed  of  the  Empress's  sentiments  with  respect 
to  the  belligerent  and  neutral  Powers,  by  a  memorial  remitted  to  the 
Compte  de  Florida  Blanca  on  the  15th  instant  by  Mr.  Etienne  de 
Zinowief,  Minister  to  Her  Imperial  Majesty:  the  King  considers  this 
as  the  effect  of  a  just  confidence  which  His  Majesty  has  on  his  pnrt 
merited ;  and  it  is  yet  more  agreeable  that  the  principles  adopted  by 
this  sovereign  should  be  the  same  as  have  always  guided  the  King,  and 
which  His  Majesty  has  for  a  long  time,  but  without  success,  en- 
deavored to  cause  England  to  obser\'e,  while  Spain  remained  neuter. 
These  principles  are  founded  in  justice,  equity,  and  moderation;  and 
these  same  principles  Russia  and  all  the  other  Powers  have  experi- 


'^Annual  Register,  1780,  p.  350.     French  text  in  Martens,  R(*cueil,  2d  ed.,  vol. 
3,  p.  164. 


280  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

enced  in  the  resolutions  formed  by  His  Majesty;  and  it  has  been  en- 
tirely owing  to  the  conduct  of  the  English  navy,  both  in  the  last  and  the 
present  war  (a  conduct  wholly  subversive  of  the  received  rules  among 
neutral  Powers)  that  His  Majesty  has  been  obliged  to  follow  their 
example;  since  the  English  paying  no  respect  to  a  neutral  flag,  if  the 
same  be  laden  with  effects  belonging  to  the  enemy,  even  if  the  articles 
should  not  be  contraband,  and  that  flag  not  using  any  means  of  de- 
fending itself,  there  could  not  be  any  just  cause  why  Spain  should 
not  make  reprisals,  to  indemnify  herself  for  the  great  disadvantages 
slie  must  otherwise  labor  under.  The  neutral  Powers  have  also  laid 
themselves  open  to  the  inconveniences  they  have  suffered,  by  fur- 
nishing themselves  with  double  papers,  and  other  artifices,  to  prevent 
the  capture  of  their  vessels ;  from  which  have  followed  captures  and 
detentions  innumerable,  and  other  disagreeable  consequences,  though 
in  reality  not  so  prejudicial  as  pretended;  on  the  contrary,  some  of 
these  detentions  have  turned  to  the  advantage  of  the  proprietors,  as 
the  goods,  being  sold  in  the  port  where  they  were  condemned,  have 
frequently  gone  off  at  a  higher  price  than  they  would  have  done  at  the 
place  of  their  destination. 

The  King,  nevertheless,  not  contented  with  these  proofs  of  his  justi- 
fication, which  have  been  manifest  to  all  Europe,  will  this  day  have 
the  glor}^  of  being  the  first  to  give  the  example  of  respecting  the  neu- 
tral flag  of  all  the  Courts  that  have  consented,  or  shall  consent,  to 
defend  it,  till  His  Majesty  finds  what  part  the  English  navy  takes,  and 
whether  they  will,  together  with  their  privateers,  keep  within  proper 
bounds.  And  to  show  to  all  the  neutral  Powers  how  much  Spain  is 
desirous  of  observing  the  same  rules  in  time  of  war  as  she  was  di- 
rected by  whilst  neuter.  His  Majesty  conforms  to  the  other  points 
contained  in  the  declaration  of  Russia.  To  be  understood,  neverthe- 
less, that,  with  regard  to  the  blockade  of  Gibraltar,  the  danger  of  en- 
tering subsists,  as  determined  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  said  declara- 
tion. These  dangers  may,  however,  be  avoided  by  the  neutral  Powers, 
if  they  conform  to  those  rules  of  precaution  established  by  His 
Majesty's  declaration  of  the  13th  of  last  March, ^  which  has  been  com- 
municated to  the  Court  of  Petersburg  by  his  Minister. 

Florida  Blanca 

At  Aranjuez,  iS  April,  i/8o. 


^Martens.  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  92. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  281 

British  Instructions  to  War-ships  and  Privateers,  April  19,  1780^ 

An  additional  instruction  to  all  ships  of  war  and  privateers  that 
have  or  may  have  letters  of  marque  against  the  French  King,  or  the 
King  of  Spain,  their  vassals  or  subjects,  or  others  inhabiting  within 
any  of  their  countries,  territories,  or  dominions,  or  against  any  other 
enemies  or  rebellious  subjects  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  Given 
at  our  Court  at  St.  James's  the  nineteenth  day  of  April,  1780,  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  our  reign.  [L.  S.] 

Whereas  by  our  order  in  council,  bearing  date  the  seventeenth  of 
this  instant  April,  1780,  the  several  treaties,  whereby  peculiar  privi- 
leges are  granted  to  the  subjects  of  the  States-General  of  the  United 
Provinces,  respecting"  their  trade  and  navigation  in  time  of  war,  are 
suspended,  and  the  subjects  of  the  States-General  are  to  be  considered 
upon  the  same  footing  with  the  subjects  of  other  neutral  States,  not 
privileged  by  treaty,  until  our  pleasure  to  the  contrary  be  formally 
signified.  The  commanders  of  our  ships  of  war,  and  the  commanders 
of  all  ships  and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  are 
hereby  authorized  and  required  to  seize  and  detain  all  such  ships  and 
vessels  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  States-General,  as  they  shall 
meet,  having  any  goods  belonging  to  His  Majesty's  enemies  on  board, 
or  goods  which  are  deemed  contraband  by  the  general  law  of  nations. 

But  it  is  our  pleasure,  from  a  regard  to  the  interest  of  individuals, 
and  a  desire  to  prevent  their  suffering  by  any  surprise,  that  the  effect 
of  our  afore-mentioned  order  in  council  shall  take  place  at  the  follow- 
ing terms,  viz. : 

In  the  Channel  and  the  North  Seas,  twelve  days  after  the  date  of 
our  said  order  in  council. 

From  the  Channel,  the  British  Seas,  and  the  North  Seas,  as  far  as 
the  Canary  Islands  inclusive,  either  in  the  ocean  or  Mediterranean, 
the  term  shall  be  six  weeks  from  the  date  of  our  said  order. 

Three  months  from  the  Canary  Islands,  as  far  as  the  equinoctial 
line  or  equator. 

And  lastly,  six  months  beyond  the  equinoctial  line  or  equator,  and 
in  all  other  parts  of  the  world  without  any  exception,  or  other  more 
particular  description  of  time  and  place. 

By  His  Majesty's  Command, 

Stormont 


^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  62.  Previous  instructions  were  issued :  May  2,  1776,  and 
March  27,  1777,  against  the  American  Colonies  (ibid.,  pp.  19,  27)  ;  August  5,  and 
December  15,  1778,  against  France  (ibid.,  pp.  44,  59). 


282  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Reply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  April  23,  1780^ 

During  the  course  of  the  war,  wherein  His  Britannic  Majesty  finds 
himself  engaged  through  the  unprovoked  aggression  of  France  and 
Spain,  he  hath  constantly  manifested  his  sentiments  of  justice,  equity, 
and  moderation,  in  every  part  of  his  conduct.  His  Majesty  hath  acted 
towards  friendly  and  neutral  Powers  according  to  their  own  procedure 
respecting  Great  Britain,  and  conformable  to  the  clearest  principles, 
generally  acknowledged  as  the  law  of  nations,  being  the  only  law  be- 
tween Powers  where  no  treaties  subsist,  and  agreeable  to  the  tenor 
of  his  different  engagements  with  other  Powers ;  those  engagements 
have  altered  this  primitive  law,  by  mutual  stipulations,  proportioned 
to  the  will  and  convenience  of  the  contracting  Parties. 

Strongly  attached  to  Her  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  by  the  ties  of 
reciprocal  friendship,  and  common  interest,  the  king,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  those  troubles,  gave  the  most  precise  orders  respecting 
the  flag  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  and  the  commerce  of  her  subjects, 
agreeable  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  tenor  of  the  engagements 
stipulated  by  his  treaty  of  commerce  with  her,  and  to  which  he  shall 
adhere  with  the  most  scrupulous  exactness. 

The  orders  to  this  intent  have  been  renewed,  and  the  utmost  care 
will  be  taken  for  their  strictest  execution. 

It  may  be  presmned,  not  the  least  irregularity  will  happen ;  but  in 
case  any  infringements,  contrary  to  these  repeated  orders,  take  place, 
the  courts  of  admiralty,  which  in  this,  like  all  other  countries,  are  es- 
tablished to  take  cognizance  of  such  matters,  and  in  all  cases  do  judge 
solely  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  by  the  specific  stipulations  of  differ- 
ent treaties,  will  redress  every  hardship  in  so  equitable  a  manner,  that 
Her  Imperial  Majesty  shall  be  perfectly  'satisfied,  and  acknowledge  a 
like  spirit  of  justice  which  she  herself  possesses. 


''■Annual  Recjistcr,  1780,  p.  349.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3, 
p.  160. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  283 

Extract  from  the  Register  of  Resolutions  of  the  States-General  of 
the  Netherlands,  April  24,  1780,  replying  to  the  Russian 
Memorandum^ 

Having  deliberated  by  supposition  on  the  memorandum  which  the 
Prince  Gallitzin,  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  Her  Majesty  the  Em- 
press of  all  the  Russias,  presented  to  the  Assembly  on  the  3d  instant, 
accompanied  by  a  declaration  made  by  Her  said  Imperial  Majesty 
to  the  Courts  of  England,  France,  and  Spain,  with  regard  to  the 
freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  of  her  subjects,  in  which  memo- 
randum this  Minister  makes  known  to  Their  High  Mightinesses  the 
disposition  of  his  sovereign  to  protect,  in  concert  with  neutral  Powers, 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects,  as  more  fully 
set  forth  in  the  above-mentioned  documents  of  the  3d ;  it  has  been 
deemed  well  and  it  has  been  decided  to  reply  to  the  Prince  Gallitzin 
with  regard  to  his  said  memorandum  that  Their  High  Mightinesses 
have  received  with  great  satisfaction  the  communication  respecting  her 
views  which  Her  Imperial  Majesty  has  been  pleased  to  have  presented 
to  them,  and  the  declaration  that  she  has  had  submitted  to  the  Courts 
of  London,  Versailles,  and  Madrid ;  that  Their  High  Mightinesses 
look  upon  this  communication  as  a  striking  proof  of  the  fact  that  Her 
Imperial  Majesty  is  well  disposed  toward  the  Republic  and  that  they 
feel  it  to  be  an  honor  and  a  duty  to  reply  cordially  and  sincerely ;  that 
Their  High  Mightinesses  commend  and  consider  as  a  further  effect  of 
the  recognized  magnanimity  and  justice  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  as 
well  as  the  goal  which  she  has  set  before  herself,  that  the  means  which 
she  has  conceived  to  maintain  during  the  present  war  the  most  scrupu- 
lous neutrality  with  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  to  assure  not  only  the 
honor  of  the  flag  of  Russia  and  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  of 
navigation  of  her  subjects,  and  not  to  permit  any  of  the  Powers  that 
are  now  at  war  to  inflict  the  slightest  injury  upon  them,  but  also  to 
protect  the  liberties  and  tranquillity  of  Europe,  and  to  fix  and  establish 
upon  the  most  solid  foundations  of  equity  and  the  law  of  nations,  and 
of  treaties  still  in  force,  an  equitable  system  for  the  navigation  and 
commerce  of  neutral  Powers. 

That  Their  High  Mightinesses,  like  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  desiring 
to  observe  a  strict  neutrality  during  the  present  war,  have  experienced 
only  too  well  the  injuries  suffered  by  the  navigation  and  commerce 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  168. 


284  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  neutral  Powers  through  the  vague  and  arbitrary  conceptions  held 
by  the  belligerent  Powers  on  the  right  of  neutrals,  which  are  influenced 
by  their  individual  interests  and  their  war  operations,  and  it  is  for 
this  reason  that  Their  High  Mightinesses,  like  Her  Imperial  Majesty, 
deem  it  absolutely  necessary  that  this  right  be  established  upon  solid 
foundations  and  maintained  in  concert  by  the  maritime  neutral 
Powers ;  that  with  respect  to  the  determination  of  this  right  Their 
High  Mightinesses,  conforming  entirely  to  the  five  points  contained 
in  the  declaration  made  by  Her  Imperial  Majesty  to  the  Courts  of 
Versailles,  Madrid,  and  London,  and  communicated  in  her  name  to 
Their  High  Mightinesses  on  April  3  by  the  Prince  Gallitzin,  are, 
following  the  example  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  ready  to  make  a 
similar  declaration  to  the  belligerent  Powers.  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses being  thus  disposed  to  enter  into  a  conference  with  this  Princess 
and  the  other  neutral  maritime  Powers  respecting  the  measures  by 
means  of  which,  by  the  observance  of  strict  neutrality  between  the 
Powers  at  war,  freedom  of  navigation  and  commerce  may  be  main- 
tained with  their  united  forces  in  the  most  effectual  manner,  both  now 
and  hereafter. 

An  extract  of  the  present  resolution  of  Their  High  Mightinesses 
shall  be  transmitted  by  their  agent  van  der  Burch  de  Spieringshoeck 
to  the  Prince  Gallitzin,  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  who  shall  be  requested  to  communicate 
it  to  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and  to  present  to  her  this  reply  imder  the 
most  favorable  aspect,  accompanying  it  with  his  good  offices. 


Reply  of  the  King  of  France  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  April  25,  1780^ 

The  war  in  which  the  King  is  engaged  having  no  other  object  than 
the  attachment  of  His  Majesty  to  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  he  could 
not  but  with  the  truest  satisfaction  see  the  Empress  of  Russia  adopt 
the  same  principle  and  resolve  to  maintain  it.  That  which  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  claims  from  the  belHgerent  Powers  is  no  other  than  the 


^Annual  Register,  1780,  p.  349 ;  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  162. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  285 

rules  already  prescribed  to  the  French  marine,  the  execution  of  which 
is  maintained  with  an  exactitude  known  and  applauded  by  all  Europe. 

The  liberty  of  neutral  vessels,  restrained  only  in  a  few  cases,  is 
the  direct  consequence  of  neutral  right,  the  safeguard  of  all  nations, 
and  the  relief  even  of  those  at  war.  The  King  has  been  desirous, 
not  only  to  procure  a  freedom  of  navigation  to  the  subjects  of  the 
Empress  of  Russia,  but  to  those  of  all  the  States  who  hold  their  neu- 
trality, and  that  upon  the  same  conditions  as  are  announced  in  the 
treaty  to  which  His  Majesty  this  day  answers. 

His  Majesty  thought  he  had  taken  a  great  step  for  the  general  good, 
and  prepared  a  glorious  epocha  for  his  reign,  by  fixing  by  his  exam- 
ple, the  rights  which  every  belligerent  Power  may,  and  ought  to  ac- 
knowledge to  be  due  to  neutral  vessels.  His  hopes  have  not  been 
deceived,  as  the  Empress,  in  avowing  the  strictest  neutrality,  has  de- 
clared in  favor  of  a  system  which  the  King  is  supporting  at  the  price 
of  his  people's  blood,  and  that  Her  Majesty  adopts  the  same  rights  as 
he  would  wish  to  make  the  basis  of  the  maritime  code. 

If  fresh  orders  were  necessary  to  prevent  the  vessels  of  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  from  being  disturbed  in  their  navigation  by  the  sub- 
jects of  the  King,  His  Majesty  would  immediately  give  them;  but  the 
Empress  will  no  doubt  be  satisfied  with  the  dispositions  made  by  His 
Majesty  in  the  regulations  he  has  published.  They  do  not  hold  by 
circumstances  only,  but  they  are  founded  on  the  right  of  nations,  and 
quite  suitable  to  a  prince  who  finds  the  happiness  of  his  own  kingdom 
in  that  of  the  general  prosperity.  The  King  wishes  Her  Imperial 
Majesty  would  add  to  the  means  she  has  fixed  to  determine  what 
merchandises  are  reckoned  contraband  in  time  of  war,  precise  rules 
in  the  form  of  the  sea  papers  with  which  the  Russian  ships  will  be 
furnished. 

With  this  precaution,  His  Majesty  is  assured  nothing  will  happen 
to  make  him  regret  the  having  put  the  Russian  navigators  on  as  ad- 
vantageous a  footing  as  can  be  in  time  of  war.  Happy  circumstances 
have  more  than  once  occurred  to  prove  to  the  Courts  how  important  it 
is  for  them  to  explain  themselves  freely  relative  to  their  respective 
interests. 

His  Majesty  is  very  happy  to  have  explained  his  way  of  thinking 
to  Her  Imperial  Majesty  upon  so  interesting  a  point  for  Russia,  and 
the  trading  Powers  of  Europe.  He  the  more  sincerely  applauds  the 
principles  and  views  of  the  Empress,  as  His  Majesty  partakes  of  the 


286  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

same  sentiments  which  have  brought  Her  Majesty  to  adopt  those 
measures,  which  must  be  to  the  advantage  of  her  own  subjects,  and 
all  other  nations. 

Versailles,  April  25,  lySo. 


Declaration  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  States-General  of  the 
Netherlands,  indicating  Approval  of  the  Armed  Neutrality, 
April  26,  1780^ 

The  King's  political  system  is  founded  essentially  on  the  invariable 
principles  of  justice  and  moderation.  His  Majesty  gave  the  most 
unequivocal  proof  thereof,  when  differences  first  arose  between  him 
and  the  King  of  England,  by  showing  his  good-will  toward  all  neutral 
Powers  through  the  extension  of  provisions  most  favorable  to  their 
prosperity  and  by  not  proposing  any  conditions  other  than  that  of  the 
most  absolute  impartiality. 

He  most  sincerely  regrets  that  he  is  unable  to  recognize  these  char- 
acteristics in  the  resolution  of  the  States-General  of  November  19, 
1778,  by  which  Your  High  Mightinesses  suspended  your  protection 
with  respect  to  that  branch  of  commerce  which  was  assured  freedom 
by  the  laws  of  public  equity  and  the  most  precise  treaty  stipulations. 
The  King  then  charged  me  to  announce  to  Your  High  Mightinesses 
"that,  if  you  were  determined  thus  to  sacrifice  part  of  your  rights  to 
his  enemies,  His  Majesty  could  not  continue  to  grant  your  subjects 
advantages  promised  conditionally  in  his  recent  regulations,  nor  the 
time-honored  favors  which  commerce  enjoys  in  the  States  and  which 
are  not  the  result  of  any  convention  but  of  an  hereditary  good-will 
and  affection." 

Your  High  Mightinesses  hastened  to  assure  the  King  that  you  were 
determined  to  observe  the  strictest  neutrality  during  the  troubles  that 
had  arisen  between  France  and  England ;  but  if  you  announced  that 
the  act  suspending  the  Republic's  effectual  protection  of  vessels  laden 
with  wood  for  building  purposes  would  be  regarded  as  null  and  void. 


^Translation  of  note   from   the  French   Amhassador  at  The  Hague.     French 
text,  Hennings,  Sammlung  von  Staatsschriftcn,  vol.  1,  p.  59. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  287 

you  declared  at  the  same  time  that  all  discussion  of  this  matter  would 
be  postponed  until  after  the  deliberations  on  the  subject  of  convoys. 

His  Majesty,  not  perceiving  in  this  new  disposition  a  real  change 
of  intention,  did  not  see  how  he  could  refrain  from  putting  limitations 
on  the  advantages  granted  in  the  various  ports  of  his  kingdom  to 
Dutch  commerce,  since  Your  High  Mightinesses  continued  to  suspend, 
in  favor  of  the  enemies  of  his  Crown,  the  exercise  of  the  most  firmly 
established  rights ;  but  he  has  been  pleased  to  continue  these  advan- 
tages with  respect  to  various  members  of  the  Republic  according  as 
they  have  adopted  a  system  which,  while  being  in  accord  with  his  views, 
is  essentially  just.  He  has  applauded  the  demands  made  by  Your 
High  Mightinesses  on  the  Court  of  London,  your  efiforts  to  regain  for 
the  flag  of  the  United  Provinces  the  consideration  that  it  once  enjoyed, 
as  well  as  the  positive  order  which  you  have  given  that  a  squadron 
hold  itself  in  readiness  to  escort  and  to  protect  all  vessels  laden  with 
articles  not  included  among  contraband  goods,  when  it  was  learned  that 
unlimited  convoys  would  be  detained ;  and  it  has  been  his  constant 
desire  that  Your  High  Mightinesses  might  at  length  cease  to  place 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  his  demonstrations  of  affection  by  your  abso- 
lute abandonment  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  your  interests. 

Being  informed  of  your  final  intentions  in  this  respect  and  assured 
of  the  development  which  Your  High  Mightinesses  are  determined  to 
give  to  your  neutrality  by  granting  for  an  indefinite  period  effectual 
protection  to  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  your  subjects.  His  Maj- 
esty has  listened  with  pleasure  to  the  representations  which  a  number 
of  members  of  the  union,  and  especially  the  Prince  who  is  at  the 
head  of  the  Republic,  have  made  to  him  regarding  the  restraints  placed 
upon  the  commerce  of  the  different  provinces  in  the  ports  of  his  king- 
dom; and  His  Majesty  has  commanded  me  to  say  to  Your  High 
Mightinesses  "that  he  has  revoked  by  a  decree  of  his  Council  dated 
April  22,  1780,^  a  true  copy  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  hand  you, 
the  decrees  of  January  14,^^  April  27,  and  September  18,  1779." 

But  he  does  not  wish  to  confine  himself  to  restoring  in  this  way  the 
subjects  of  Your  High  Mightinesses  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  favors 
which  they  experienced  before  the  publication  of  these  new  laws, 
and  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  advantages  promised  conditionally  by 
his  regulations  concerning  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  neutrals. 


^Ibid.,  p.  61. 

-Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.  178. 


288  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

It  is  his  wish  to  give  you  a  striking  proof  of  his  good-will,  and  he 
charges  me  to  announce  to  Your  High  Mightinesses  "that  he  has 
ordered  restitution  of  all  sums  levied  by  the  officers  of  his  farms  by 
virtue  of  the  said  decrees." 

He  flatters  himself  with  the  belief  that  such  convincing  evidence  of 
his  affection  will  persuade  Your  High  Mightinesses  not  only  that  he 
takes  the  sincerest  interest  in  the  prosperity  of  the  United  Provinces, 
but  also  that  justice,  moderation,  and  beneficence  form  the  essential 
and  invariable  basis  of  his  policy  and  his  acts. 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  Russia  to  the  Request  of  Sweden  for  Explana- 
tions respecting  the  Project  for  an  Armed  Neutrality,  April  29, 
1780^ 

Article  1 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  protection  and  mutual  assistance  shall 
be  granted,  it  must  be  settled  by  a  formal  convention,  to  which  all  the 
neutral  Powers  will  be  invited,  the  principal  end  of  which  is,  to  ensure 
a  free  navigation  to  the  merchant  ships  of  all  nations.  Whenever  such 
vessel  shall  have  proved  from  its  papers,  that  it  carries  no  contraband 
goods,  the  protection  of  a  squadron,  or  vessels  of  war,  shall  be  granted 
her,  under  whose  care  she  shall  put  herself,  and  which  shall  prevent 
her  being  interrupted.     From  hence  it  follows: 

Article  2 

That  each  Power  must  concur  in  the  general  security  of  commerce. 
In  the  meantime,  the  better  to  accomplish  this  object,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  settle,  by  means  of  a  separate  article,  the  places  and  distances 
which  may  be  judged  proper  for  the  station  of  each  Power.  From 
that  method  will  arise  this  advantage,  that  all  the  squadrons  of  the 
allies  will  form  a  kind  of  chain,  and  be  able  to  assist  each  other;  the 
particular  arrangement  to  be  confined  only  to  the  knowledge  of  the 


^Translation.     French  text.  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  171.     See  also 
Annual  Register,  1780,  p.  355.     For  the  Swedish  questions,  see  ante,  p.  276. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  289 

allies,  though  the  convention  in  all  other  points,  will  be  communicated 
to  the  Powers  at  war,  accompanied  with  all  the  protestations  of  a 
strict  neutrality. 

Article  3 

It  is  undoubtedly  the  principle  of  a  perfect  equality,  which  must 
regulate  this  point.  We  shall  follow  the  common  mode  with  regard 
to  safety.  In  case  the  squadrons  should  meet  and  engage,  the  com- 
manders will  conform  to  the  usages  of  the  sea  service,  because,  as  is 
observed  above,  the  reciprocal  protection,  under  these  conditions,  should 
be  unlimited. 

Article  4 

It  seems  expedient  that  the  representations  mentioned  in  this  article 
be  made  by  the  party  aggrieved ;  and  that  the  Ministers  of  the  other 
confederate  Powers  support  those  remonstrances  in  the  most  forcible 
and  efficacious  manner. 

Article  5 

We  feel  all  the  importance  of  this  consideration;  and,  to  render  it 
clear,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  case. 

If  any  one  of  the  allied  Powers  should  suffer  itself  to  be  drawn 
in  by  motives  contrary  to  the  established  principles  of  a  neutrality 
and  perfect  impartiality,  should  injure  its  laws,  or  extend  their  bounds, 
it  can  not  certainly  be  expected  that  the  others  should  espouse  the 
quarrel ;  on  the  contrary,  such  a  conduct  would  be  deemed  an  aban- 
doning the  ties  which  unite  them.  But  if  the  insult  offered  to  one 
of  the  allies  should  be  hostile  to  the  principles  adopted  and  announced 
in  the  face  of  all  Europe,  or  should  be  marked  with  the  character  of 
hatred  and  animosity,  inspired  by  resentment,  these  common  measures 
of  the  confederacy,  which  have  no  other  tendency  than  to  make,  in 
a  precise  and  irrevocable  manner,  laws  for  the  liberty  of  commerce, 
and  the  rights  of  every  neutral  nation,  then  it  shall  be  held  indispen- 
sable for  the  united  Powers  to  make  a  common  cause  of  it  (at  sea 
only)  without  its  being  a  ground- work  for  other  operations,  as  these 
connections  are  purely  maritime,  having  no  other  object  than  naval 
commerce  and  navigation. 

From  all  that  is  said  above,  it  evidently  results,  that  the  common 
will  of  all,  founded  upon  the  principles  admitted  and  adopted  by  the 


290  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

contracting  Parties,  must  alone  decide,  and  that  it  will  always  be  the 
fixed  basis  of  the  conduct  and  operations  of  this  union.  Finally,  we 
shall  observe,  that  these  conventions  suppose  no  other  naval  arma- 
ment than  what  shall  be  conformable  to  circumstances,  according  as 
those  shall  render  them  necessary,  or  as  may  be  agreed.  It  is  prob- 
able that  this  agreement,  once  ratified  and  established,  will  be  of  the 
greatest  consequence ;  and  that  the  belligerent  Powers  will  find  in  it 
sufficient  motives  to  persuade  them  to  respect  the  neutral  flag,  and  pre- 
vent their  provoking  the  resentment  of  a  respectable  communion, 
founded  under  the  auspices  of  the  most  evident  justice,  and  the  sole 
idea  of  which  is  received  with  the  universal  applause  of  all  impartial 
Europe. 


Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  regarding  the  Neutrality 
of  the  Baltic  Sea,  communicated  to  the  Courts  of  the  Belligerent 
Powers,  May  8,  1780^ 

The  States  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  are  situated  in 
such  a  way  that  the  commerce  of  his  subjects  with  the  Provinces  be- 
longing to  his  Crown  would  be  disturbed,  unless  His  Majesty  took  all 
measures  capable  of  guaranteeing  the  Baltic  and  its  coasts  from  hos- 
tilities and  acts  of  violence  of  all  kinds,  and  of  protecting  it  from 
raids  by  privateers  and  armed  vessels. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  keep  open,  free  and  tranquil  communication 
between  his  Provinces,  the  King  has  resolved  that  the  Baltic  Sea  being 
a  closed  sea,  incontestably  so  by  reason  of  its  geographical  situation, 
where  all  nations  should  and  may  navigate  in  peace  and  enjoy  all  the 
advantages  of  perfect  tranquillity.  His  Majesty  could  not  admit  thereto 
armed  vessels  of  the  Powers  at  war  for  the  purpose  of  committing  acts 
of  hostility  against  any  one  whatsoever. 

The  other  two  Courts  of  the  north  adopt  and  announce  the  same 
system,  which  is  the  more  just  and  natural  because  all  the  Powers 
whose  States  surround  the  Baltic  enjoy  the  most  profound  peace  and 
regard  it  as  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  that  sovereigns  can  secure  to 
their  subjects. 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens.  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  175. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  291 

Russian  Ordinance  concerning  Commerce  and  Navigation,  May  19, 

1780^ 

Article  1 

Merchant  ships  may  not  take  part  in  the  war,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  or  under  any  pretext  whatsoever ;  neither  may  they  give  aid 
lo  any  of  the  belligerent  Powers  by  supplying  it  with  contraband 
goods  under  the  flag  of  Russia.  Contraband  goods  comprise  spe- 
cifically cannons,  mortars,  muskets,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets 
or  balls  suitable  for  shooting,  guns,  gun-flints,  fuses,  powder,  salt- 
peter, sulphur,  breastplates,  pikes,  swords,  scabbards,  cartridge-boxes, 
saddles,  and  bridles.  Merchant  ships  must  also  take  great  care  not  to 
have  on  board  a  greater  quantity  of  such  munitions  of  war  than  it 
needs  for  its  own  use,  that  is  to  say,  a  quantity  sufficient  to  supply 
each  sailor  or  passenger. 

Article  2 

All  other  goods,  to  whomsoever  they  may  belong,  and  even  if  they 
belong  to  subjects  of  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  may  be  freely 
transported  on  Russian  vessels,  and  shall  enjoy,  together  with  the  goods 
of  our  subjects,  the  protection  of  the  Russian  flag,  except  the  goods 
mentioned  in  Article  1  under  the  head  of  contraband,  which  are 
declared  to  be  such  in  Article  11  of  our  treaty  of  commerce  with 
England.^  In  consideration  of  this  security  of  goods  permitted  on  board 
neutral  vessels,  our  subjects  must  take  care  not  to  ship  eflfects  belonging 
to  them  on  vessels  of  the  nations  at  war,  in  order  to  avoid  any  un- 
pleasantness or  untoward  incident. 

Article  3 

Every  vessel  sailing  from  the  port  of  this  city  or  from  any  other 
port  of  our  Empire  must  be  supplied  with  sufficient  proofs  that  it  be- 
longs to  Russian  subjects;  that  is  to  say,  the  customary  ship's  register 
and  a  customs  certificate  setting  forth : 

(1)  The  kind  and  quantity  of  the  goods  on  board. 

(2)  For  whose  account  they  have  been  purchased  and  to  whom  they 
are  shipped. 

(3)  To  what  port  and  to  whom  the  vessel  and  its  cargo  are  con- 
signed. 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  271. 
^Post,  p.  329. 


292  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

For  greater  security  the  certificates  issued  by  the  custom  house 
shall  be  viseed  by  the  admiralty,  or  in  its  absence  by  the  magistrate 
of  the  place. 

Article  4 

These  prerogatives  shall  be  enjoyed  not  only  by  our  born  subjects 
but  also  by  foreigners,  who  are  domiciled  under  our  rule  and  pay 
public  taxes  like  our  own  subjects ;  that  is  to  say,  as  long  as  they 
dwell  in  our  country,  since  in  any  other  case  they  would  not  be  per- 
mitted to  use  the  merchant  flag  of  Russia. 

Article  5 

Each  individual  Russian  vessel,  even  though  a  single  owner  sends 
two  or  three  vessels  at  the  same  time  to  the  same  place,  must  be  pro- 
vided with  the  documents  mentioned  in  Article  3,  which  may  prove 
their  ownership  in  case  the  vessels  should  become  separated  during  the 
voyage  or  in  case  they  should  be  forced  to  follow  different  courses. 

Article  6 

It  is  forbidden  for  any  Russian  vessel  to  have  false  or  equivocal 
bills  of  lading,  charter  parties,  or  other  ship's  papers,  still  more,  false 
declarations,  inasmuch  as  these  last  always  expose  them  to  inevitable 
danger.  Therefore  special  attention  should  be  given  to  see  that  the 
documents  are  in  good  order  and  that  they  state  clearly,  as  specified 
above,  the  true  destination  of  the  vessel  and  the  character  of  its  cargo. 
It  is  also  necessary  that  the  contract  between  the  owner  of  the  goods  and 
the  master  of  the  vessel  or  the  agreement  known  as  the  charter  party 
be  always  on  board.  But,  as  it  quite  often  happens  that  the  owner 
of  the  goods,  in  shipping  them,  either  on  his  own  vessel  or  on  some 
otiier  neutral  vessel  chartered  by  him,  decides  in  advance,  solely  on 
speculation,  to  sell  them  in  a  certain  port,  and,  in  case  the  price  in  that 
port  is  too  low,  in  some  more  distant  port,  he  must  not,  in  such  a  case, 
fail  to  specify  and  determine  the  two  ports  in  the  order  of  the  course 
and  of  their  situation,  in  one  and  the  same  bill  of  lading,  and  not  in 
two.  This  same  precaution  must  be  observed  with  regard  to  charter 
parties,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  differences  between  them  and  the 
bills  of  lading.   And.  in  case  any  of  our  subjects,  in  contempt  of  these 


OFFICIAL  DOCUAIENTS  293 

provisions,  should  stoop  to  artifice  and  duplicity,  they  may  be  assured 
that  they  shall  never  enjoy  our  protection,  which  shall  be  given  only 
to  lawful  and  innocent  commerce,  and  under  no  circumstances  to  illicit 
and  fraudulent  trade. 

Article  7 

Every  Russian  vessel  which,  after  having  unloaded  its  cargo  in  some 
foreign  port,  purposes  to  return  to  its  country  or  to  proceed  further 
to  some  other  foreign  point,  must  provide  itself  in  this  port,  and  in 
any  other  where  it  may  stop  to  trade,  with  the  documents  required  by 
the  practice  of  the  country,  in  order  that  it  may  be  ascertained  at  any 
time  to  what  nation  the  vessel  belongs,  from  what  port  it  comes,  for 
what  port  it  is  bound,  and  with  what  new  goods  it  has  been  loaded. 

Article  8 

Inasmuch  as  the  aforesaid  documents  are  absolutely  necessary  to 
prove  neutral  ownership  of  goods  on  board  the  ship,  particular  care 
must  be  exercised  not  to  throw  them  overboard,  or  any  other  writings 
or  papers  without  exception,  or  on  any  occasion  whatever,  particularly 
on  encountering  another  vessel,  since  by  such  a  proceeding  the  vessel 
may  lay  itself  open  to  well-founded  suspicion  and  to  disagreeable 
consequences. 

Article  9 

Care  should  be  taken  that  there  be  not  on  board  a  Russian  vessel 
a  merchant,  a  commercial  employee,  or  other  officer,  or  more  than  one 
third  of  the  sailors,  who  are  subjects  of  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers, 
since  otherwise  such  a  vessel  might  meet  with  many  unpleasant  inci- 
dents. Vessels  purchased  in  time  of  war  from  subjects  of  belligerent 
Powers  would  be  exposed  to  similar  complications.  Therefore,  now 
and  as  long  as  the  present  war  lasts,  they  may  not  be  purchased  for 
any  other  purpose  than  for  navigation  in  the  Baltic  or  in  the  Black  Sea. 

Article  10 

It  is  forbidden,  in  general,  to  carry  any  goods  from  any  point  what- 
ever to  places  that  are  now  under  blockade  or  siege,  by  land  or  by  sea ; 
and  if  any  of  our  merchants  should  risk  such  unlawful  commerce,  they 
shall  not,  in  spite  of  their  loss,  have  the  slightest  right  to  seek  our 
protection. 


294  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  11 

All  our  subjects,  who  happen  to  be  in  foreign  lands  for  commercial 
purposes,  must  conform  strictly  to  the  local  mercantile  laws  in  force 
as  well  as  to  the  ordinances  of  the  place  where  they  reside  or  to  which 
they  send  their  vessels.  And  in  order  that  these  laws  and  ordinances 
may  be  known  to  them  so  far  as  possible,  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs  shall  communicate  to  our  Chamber  of  Commerce  all  papers 
relating  thereto,  so  that  all  merchants  may  be  informed  thereof  by 
means  of  the  gazettes. 

Article  12 

Our  purpose  to  protect  and  to  defend  in  the  most  effectual  manner 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  our  faithful  subjects  in  nowise  con- 
templates that  our  course  shall  result  in  injury  to  any  of  the  belligerent 
Powers,  or  that  individual  merchants  take  advantage  of  it  for  the 
purpose  of  making  unlawful  gains.  Therefore  we  expressly  forbid  the 
merchants  of  our  empire  to  permit  foreigners  to  sail  ships  or  to  carry 
on  commerce  under  their  name.  In  case  of  contravention  of  our  will  in 
this  respect,  the  guilty  party  shall  forfeit  his  right  to  engage  in  mari- 
time commerce  and  to  enjoy  our  imperial  protection  therein. 

If  our  subjects,  who  are  engaged  in  maritime  commerce,  strictly 
comply  with  the  terms  of  this  ordinance,  they  can  count,  in  return,  on 
our  full  and  unlimited  protection  in  their  business  in  a  foreign  country, 
as  well  as  on  the  attentive  and  zealous  intercession  of  the  Minister, 
agents,  or  consuls,  who  reside  there  in  our  behalf.  To  this  end  our 
Department  of  Foreign  Affairs  will  provide  them  in  due  time  with 
proper  instructions.  On  the  other  hand,  those  of  our  subjects  who 
shall  not  observe  these  rules  can  not  have  the  slightest  claim  on  our 
protection  in  the  misfortunes  and  losses  which  may  result  from  wilfully 
neglecting  to  use  the  necessary  circumspection  enjoined  upon  them. 
The  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  notifying  our  present  ordinance  to 
Russian  merchants  engaged  in  commerce  in  the  ports,  shall  not  fail  at 
the  same  time  to  supply  the  custom  houses  with  the  necessary  instruc- 
tions relating  thereto,  nor  to  inform  the  heads  of  the  Governments 
where  there  are  ports  of  our  will,  in  order  that  it  may  be  uniformly 
observed  in  all  the  tribunals,  in  so  far  as  they  are  concerned  therewith. 

Given  at  Czarsko-Zelo,  May  8/19,  1780. 

Catherine 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  295 

Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Danish  Declaration  regarding 
the  Neutrality  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  May  25,  1780^ 

Far  from  wishing  to  extend  the  theater  of  the  war,  the  King  has 
constantly  manifested  his  desire  to  restrict  it.  The  solicitude  of  His 
Majesty  to  fix  precisely  the  portions  of  neutral  coasts  where  his  sub- 
jects may  not  attack  the  enemy  has  already  proved  how  greatly  he  re- 
spected the  sovereignty  of  all  the  Powers  that  border  on  the  Baltic 
Sea ;  since  they  have  declared  themselves  neutral,  His  Majesty  has 
regarded  that  sea  as  closed  by  order  of  its  sovereigns.  He  shall  con- 
tinue to  follow  the  same  course,  and  since  it  is  apparently  the  wish 
of  His  Danish  Majesty  that  orders  be  given  that  no  French  vessel  shall 
commit  acts  of  hostility  beyond  the  sound,  the  Envoy  of  Denmark 
can  assure  His  Majesty  that  the  King  will  gladly  comply  with  his 
desire. 

His  Majesty  has  nothing  more  at  heart  than  to  do  what  is  advan- 
tageous and  agreeable  to  neutral  Powers,  those  Powers  especially  that 
show  themselves  to  be  the  protectors  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  and 
in  particular  His  Danish  Majesty,  whose  confidence  and  friendship  he 
earnestly  desires  to  keep. 

Verge  NNEs 


Explanatory  Article  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark  relative 
to  Neutral  Trade,  July  4,  1730- 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Great  Britain,  animated  with  an  equal  desire  to  do  away 
the  dififerences  which  the  doubtful  interpretation  of  the  3rd  article 
of  the  treaty  of  alliance  and  commerce,  concluded  in  1670,"  between 
Their  Majesties  Christian  V  and  Charles  H,  of  glorious  memory,  has 
occasioned,  and  desirous  of  preventing  whatever  might  disturb  in 
future  the  sincere  and  reciprocal  friendship  that  unites  them,  have 
agreed  to  substitute  for  the  aforesaid  article  an  explanatory  article, 
conceived  in  the  manner  and  tenor  following : 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  176. 
2Translation.     British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  vol.  1,  pt.  1,  p.  400. 
^Treaty  of  July  11,  1670.     Dumont.  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  132. 


296  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Explanatory  Article 

The  two  contracting  Sovereigns  reciprocally  engage,  for  themselves 
and  their  successors,  not  to  furnish  to  the  enemies  of  either  party,  in 
time  of  war,  any  succor,  neither  soldiers,  nor  vessels,  nor  any  effects 
and  merchandise  called  contraband;  and  in  like  manner  to  prohibit 
their  subjects  from  so  doing,  and  to  punish  severely,  and  as  destroyers 
of  the  peace,  those  who  should  dare  to  act  contrary  to  their  prohibi- 
tions in  this  respect ;  but  in  order  to  leave  no  doubt  upon  what  is  to  be 
understood  by  the  term  contraband,  it  is  agreed  that  this  denomination 
is  meant  only  to  comprehend  arms,  as  well  firearms  as  other  kinds, 
with  their  furniture,  as  cannon,  muskets,  mortars,  petards,  bombs, 
grenades,  carcasses,  saucisses,  carriages  for  cannon,  musket-rests, 
bandoliers,  gun-powder,  matches,  saltpetre,  balls,  pikes,  swords,  hel- 
mets, cuirasses,  halberts,  lances,  javelins,  horses,  saddles,  pistol- 
holsters,  belts,  and  generally  all  other  warlike  implements,  also  ship- 
timber,  tar,  pitch  and  rosin,  sheet  copper,  sails,  hemp  and  cordage,  and 
generally  whatever  immediately  serves  for  the  equipment  of  vessels ; 
unwrought  iron  and  deal  planks,  however,  excepted. 

But  it  is  expressly  declared  that  this  kind  of  contraband  merchan- 
dise shall  by  no  means  comprehend  fish  and  flesh,  fresh  or  salted, 
wheat,  flour,  corn,  or  other  grain,  vegetables,  oil,  wine,  and  generally 
whatever  serves  for  the  nourishment  and  support  of  life,  so  that  all 
these  articles  may  always  be  sold  and  transported  like  other  mer- 
chandise, even  to  places  in  the  possession  of  an  enemy  of  the  two 
Crowns,  provided  that  such  places  are  neither  besieged  nor  blockaded. 

And  Their  Majesties  being  desirous  that  this  article,  as  it  is  actually 
settled,  should  hold  precisely  the  place  of  that  for  which  it  is  substi- 
tuted, so  that  it  shall  have  the  same  effect  and  validity  as  if  it  were 
inserted,  word  for  word,  in  the  said  treaty,  and  that  it  should  be  con- 
sidered as  authentic  and  obligatory  as  the  treaty  itself;  they  have 
agreed  that  it  should  be  so  declared  and  decreed  by  a  declaration 
signed  by  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

For  which  purpose  His  Danish  Majesty  has  authorized  and  fur- 
nished the  undersigned  with  his  full  powers,  and  in  virtue  of  which 
I  have  executed  this  present  act,  serving  as  a  declaration  to  fix  the 
3rd  article  of  the  treaty  of  1670,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  found 
written  and  inserted  in  this  act,  signed  with  my  hand. 

Done  at  Copenhagen,  the  4th  July,  1780. 

[L.  S.]  A.  Bernstorff 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  297 

Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  July  8,  1780^ 

If  the  most  exact  and  perfect  neutrality,  with  the  most  regular 
navigation,  and  the  most  inviolable  respect  to  treaties,  could  have  kept 
free  the  commerce  of  the  subjects  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way from  the  inroads  of  the  Powers  with  whom  he  is  at  peace,  free 
and  independent,  it  would  not  be  necessar}'  to  take  measures  to  en- 
sure to  his  subjects  that  liberty  to  which  they  have  the  most  incon- 
trovertible right.  The  King  of  Denmark  has  always  founded  his  glory 
and  his  grandeur  upon  the  esteem  and  confidence  of  other  people.  It 
has  been  his  rule,  from  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  to  testify  to  all 
the  Powers,  his  friends,  a  conduct  the  most  capable  of  convincing 
them  of  his  pacific  intentions,  and  of  his  desire  to  contribute  to  the 
general  happiness  of  Europe.  His  proceedings  have  always  been  con- 
formable to  these  principles,  against  which  nothing  can  be  alleged ; 
he  has  not,  till  now,  addressed  himself,  but  to  the  Powers  at  war,  to 
obtain  a  redress  of  his  griefs ;  and  he  has  never  wanted  moderation 
in  his  demands,  nor  acknowledgments  when  they  have  received  the 
success  they  deserved :  but  the  neutral  navigation  has  been  too  often 
molested,  and  the  most  innocent  commerce  of  his  subjects  too  fre- 
quently troubled ;  so  that  the  King  finds  himself  obliged  to  take 
proper  measures  to  assure  to  himself  and  his  allies  the  safety  of  com- 
merce and  navigation,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  inseparable  rights 
of  liberty  and  independence.  If  the  duties  of  neutrality  are  sacred, 
the  law  of  nations  has  also  its  rights  avowed  by  all  impartial  Powers, 
established  by  custom,  and  founded  upon  equity  and  reason.  A  nation 
independent  and  neutral,  does  not  lose  by  the  war  of  others  the  rights 
which  she  had  before  the  war,  because  peace  exists  between  her  and  all 
the  belligerent  Powers.  Without  receiving  or  being  obliged  to  follow 
the  laws  of  either  of  them,  she  is  allowed  to  follow,  in  all  places 
(contraband  excepted),  the  trat'fic  which  she  would  have  a  right  to  do, 
if  peace  existed  with  all  Europe,  as  it  exists  with  her.  The  King 
pretends  to  nothing  beyond  what  the  neutrality  allows  him.  This  is 
his  rule,  and  that  of  his  people;  and  the  King  can  not  accord  to  the 
principle,  that  a  Power  at  war  has  a  right  to  interrupt  the  commerce 
of  his  subjects.  He  thinks  it  due  to  himself  and  his  subjects,  faithful 
observers  of  these  rules,  and  to  the  Powers  at  war  themselves,  to 
declare  to  them  the  following  principles,  which  he  has  always  held. 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  642. 


298  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  which  he  will  always  avow  and  maintain,  in  concert  with  the 
Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  whose  sentiments  he  finds  entirely  con- 
formable with  his  own. 

(1)  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port, 
and  along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband 
merchandise. 

(3)  That  nothing  is  to  be  understood  under  the  denominations  of 
contraband,  that  is  not  expressly  mentioned  as  such  in  the  third  article 
of  his  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain,  in  the  year  1670.^  and 
the  26th  and  27th  articles  of  his  treaty  of  commerce  with  France,  in 
the  year  1742;^  and  the  King  will  equally  maintain  these  rules  with 
those  Powers  with  whom  he  has  no  treaty. 

(4)  That  he  will  look  upon  a  blockaded  port  as  one  into  which  no 
vessel  can  enter  without  evident  danger,  on  account  of  vessels  of  war 
stationed  there,  which  form  an  effectual  blockade. 

(5)  That  these  principles  shall  serve  as  rules  for  proceedings,  and 
that  justice  shall  be  expeditiously  rendered,  after  the  rules  of  the  sea, 
conformably  to  treaty  and  usage  received. 

His  Majesty  does  not  hesitate  to  declare,  that  he  will  maintain 
these  principles  with  the  honor  of  his  flag,  and  the  liberty  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  his  subjects;  and  that  it 
is  for  this  purpose  he  has  armed  a  part  of  his  navy,  although  he  is 
desirous  to  preserve,  with  all  the  Powers  at  war,  not  only  a  good  un- 
derstanding, but  all  the  friendship  which  the  neutrality  can  admit  of. 
The  King  will  never  recede  from  these  principles,  unless  he  is  forced 
to  it:  he  knows  the  duties  and  the  obligations;  he  respects  them  as  he 
does  his  treaties  and  desires  no  other  than  to  maintain  them.  His 
Majesty  is  persuaded,  that  the  belligerent  Powers  will  acknowledge 
the  justice  of  his  motives ;  that  they  will  be  as  averse  as  himself  to 
doing  anything  that  may  oppress  the  liberties  of  mankind,  and  that 
they  will  give  their  orders  to  their  admiralty  and  to  their  officers,  con- 
formably to  the  principles  above  recited,  which  tend  to  the  general 
happiness  and  interest  of  all  Europe. 

Copenhagen,  July  S,  lySo. 

Bernstorff 


^Treaty  of  July  11,  1670.     Chalmers,  A  Collection  of  Treaties  betzveen  Great 
Britain  and  Other  Pozvers.  vol.  1,  p.  78. 
-Treaty  of  August  23,  1742.     Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  121. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  299 

Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark 
and  Norway,  July  9,  1780' 

Whereas  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  neutral  Powers  is  greatly 
injured  by  the  present  maritime  war  which  has  broken  out  between 
Great  Britain,  on  the  one  part,  and  France  and  Spain,  on  the  other 
part,  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  and  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Denmark  and  Norway,  always  solicitous  to  harmonize  their  dignity 
and  their  concern  for  the  security  and  happiness  of  their  subjects  with 
the  respect  which  they  have  so  often  manifested  for  the  rights  of 
nations  in  general,  have  found  it  necessary,  in  the  present  circum- 
stances, to  conform  their  conduct  to  these  sentiments. 

Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  in  her  declaration  to  the  bel- 
ligerent Powers,  dated  February  28,  1780,^  has  plainly  stated,  in  the 
face  of  all  Europe,  the  principles  which  derive  from  the  primitive  law 
of  nations,  and  which  Her  said  Majesty  claims  and  adopts  as  a  rule 
of  her  conduct  in  the  present  war.  As  this  attention  of  Her  Imperial 
Majesty,  in  watching  over  the  common  rights  of  nations,  has  been 
honored  with  the  approbation  of  all  neutral  Powers,  they  have  united 
in  a  cause,  which  concerns  the  defense  of  their  most  essential  interests, 
and  they  have  been  impelled  seriously  to  undertake  an  object  of  great 
importance  both  for  the  present  time  and  for  all  time  to  come,  as  it 
tends  to  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  and  invariable  system  of 
the  rights,  prerogatives,  limits,  and  engagements  of  neutrality. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  convinced  of  the 
justice  of  these  principles,  likewise  established  and  claimed  them  in 
his  declaration,  in  conformity  with  that  of  the  Empress  of  Russia, 
which,  on  July  8,  1780.''  he  caused  to  be  communicated  to  the  three 
belligerent  Powers ;  and  in  order  to  support  these  principles  effica- 
ciously, His  Majesty  has  ordered  a  considerable  part  of  his  fleet  to  be 
fitted  out.  From  these  proceedings  have  arisen  that  harmony  and 
unanimity  with  which  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  and  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  have  thought  it  advis- 
able, in  consequence  of  their  mutual  friendship  and  reciprocal  confi- 
dence, and  the  similarity  of  the  interests  of  their  subjects,  solemnly 
to  sanction  in  a  formal  convention  the  mutual  engagements  to  be  con- 
tracted with  each  other. 


^Translation.  For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  644.  Accepted  by  the 
States-General  of  the  Netherlands,  November  20,  1780  (post,  p.  325),  and  act 
of  accession   signed  at  Petersburg.   January  4,   1781    (post,  p.  346). 

^Ante,  p.  273.  "  -Ante,  p.  297. 


300  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

To  this  end  Their  Imperial  and  Royal  Majesties  have  chosen  and 
appointed  the  following  plenipotentiaries,  viz. :  Her  Majesty  the  Em- 
press of  Russia  has  appointed  Charles  d'Osten,  commonly  called 
Baron  Sacken,  Privy  Councilor  of  State,  Knight  of  the  Order  of  St. 
Anne,  Minister  Plenipotentiary  from  Her  said  Majesty  to  the  Court 
of  Denmark,  etc.,  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way has  appointed  Otton  Count  of  Thott,  Privy  Councilor  of  State, 
Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Elephant,  etc.,  Joachim  Otton  Baron  de 
Schack  Rathlow,  Privy  Councilor  of  State,  Knight  of  the  Order  of 
the  Elephant,  etc.,  John  Henry  Baron  Eichstedt,  Privy  Councilor  of 
State,  Governor  of  His  Royal  Highness  the  Hereditary  Prince  of  Den- 
mark, Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Elephant,  etc.,  and  Andrew  Peter 
Count  Bernstorfif,  Privy  Councilor  and  Minister  and  Secretary  of 
State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  President  of  the  Royal  German  Chancery, 
Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Elephant,  etc.,  which  said  Ministers,  after 
having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  which  were  found  to  be  in  due 
form,  have  concluded  and  agreed  to  the  following  articles: 

Article  1 

That  Their  aforesaid  Majesties  are  sincerely  determined  to  main- 
tain, constantly,  the  most  perfect  friendship  and  harmony  with  the 
different  Powers  at  present  engaged  in  war,  and  to  observe  the  most 
scrupulous  neutrality ;  and  in  consequence  thereof  they  declare,  that 
adhering  to  this  determination,  the  prohibition  of  all  contraband  trade 
with  the  Powers  at  present  at  war,  or  with  those  who  may  hereafter 
be  engaged  therein,  shall  be  strictly  observed  by  their  respective 
subjects. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  all  errors  and  misunderstandings  with  regard  to  commodi- 
ties which  shall  be  deemed  contraband.  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  do 
hereby  declare,  that  they  shall  only  acknowledge  such  articles  to  be 
contraband  commodities  as  are  included  and  mentioned  in  the  treaties 
now  subsisting  between  their  respective  Courts  and  the  one  or  the 
other  of  the  belligerent  Powers. 

Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia  conforms  herself  entirely  in 
this  respect  to  the  Articles  10  and  11  of  her  treaty  of  commerce  with 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  301 

the  Court  of  Great  Britain/  and  extends  likewise  the  engagements  of 
this  treaty,  which  are  founded  upon  the  natural  rights  of  nations,  to 
the  Courts  of  France  and  Spain ;  which  said  Courts,  until  the  date 
of  this  present  convention,  have  no  treaty  of  commerce  with  her 
empire. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  on  his  part,  con- 
forms himself  chiefly  to  Article  3  of  his  treaty  of  commerce  with  the 
Court  of  Great  Britain,-  and  to  Articles  26  and  27  of  his  treaty  of 
commerce  with  France,^  and  extends  also  the  engagements  of  this  last- 
mentioned  treaty  to  the  Court  of  Spain,  as  His  said  Majesty  has  no 
treaty  with  the  last-mentioned  Power,  which  determines  any  conditions 
relative  to  this  subject. 

Article  3 

As  by  these  means  all  contraband  goods  and  commodities  are  de- 
termined and  ascertained  conformable  to  the  treaties  and  express 
stipulations  subsisting  between  the  high  contracting  Parties  and  the 
belligerent  Powers,  and  chiefly  in  the  treaty  between  Russia  and  Great 
Britain  of  June  20,  1766,^  as  well  as  in  that  between  Denmark  and 
Great  Britain,  dated  July  11,  1670,-  and  by  that  concluded  between 
Denmark  and  France,  on  August  23,  1742  f  the  will  and  intention  of 
Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  and  of  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Denmark  and  Norway  are.  that  all  other  commerce  shall  be  and  re- 
main free. 

Their  said  Majesties  having  already  invoked  in  their  declaration  to 
the  belligerent  Powers,  the  general  principles  of  natural  law  whence 
the  liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation,  and  the  rights  of  neutral 
nations  derive,  are  resolved  not  to  allow  these  rights  to  depend  any 
longer  upon  an  arbitrary  interpretation,  dictated  by  partial  advantages 
and  momentary  interests ;  with  this  view.  Their  said  Majesties  have 
agreed : 

(1)  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at 
war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  con- 
traband merchandise. 


iSee  post,  p.  329. 

-Dumont,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  132. 

^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  121. 


302  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  sta- 
tioned its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render 
access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause  and 
when  the  facts  are  perfectly  evident ;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  with- 
out delay;  that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and 
legal ;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  granted  to  vessels 
which  have  suflfered  loss  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  in  each  case  be  rendered  for  the  insult  to  Their  Majesties' 

flag. 

Article  4 

In  order  to  obtain  this  end,  and  to  protect  the  general  commerce  of 
their  subjects,  founded  upon  the  principles  laid  down  above.  Her 
Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Den- 
mark and  Norway  have  resolved  to  fit  out,  separately,  a  proportionate 
number  of  ships  of  the  line  and  frigates ;  and  the  squadrons  of  these 
respective  Powers  shall  repair  to  such  latitudes,  and  shall  serve  as 
convoys  to  the  trading  ships  of  their  respective  subjects,  wherever  the 
commerce  and  navigation  of  each  nation  shall  require  it. 

Article  5 

In  case  any  merchant  ships  belonging  to  subjects  of  one  of  the  high 
contracting  Powers  should  happen  to  be  in  a  sea  or  latitude  where  no 
ships  of  war  of  their  sovereign  are  stationed,  and  consequently  should 
be  unable  to  obtain  any  protection  from  the  forces  of  their  own  na- 
tion, the  commander  of  the  ships  of  war  of  the  other  Power,  upon 
being  duly  requested,  shall  immediately  afford  them  all  necessary 
assistance ;  and  in  this  case,  it  is  hereby  stipulated,  that  the  ships  and 
frigates  of  the  one  Power  shall  always  grant  the  necessary  protection 
and  assistance  to  the  trading  ships  of  the  other  Power;  provided  al- 
ways, that  those  who  shall  claim  such  assistance  or  protection,  shall 
not  carry  on  any  illicit  trade  which  may  be  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
neutrality. 

Article  6 

The  present  convention  shall  not  be  retroactive,  and  consequently 
neither  of  the  high  contracting  Powers  shall  take  cognizance  of  any 
differences  that  may  have  arisen  before  its  conclusion,  unless  the  mat- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  303 

ter  in  litigation  relates  to  acts  of  violence  which  are  still  continuing, 
and  which  may  tend  to  oppress  all  neutral  nations  in  Europe. 

Article  7 

If,  notwithstanding  the  vigilant  and  amicable  care  of  the  two  high 
contracting  Powers,  and  the  most  exact  observation  of  neutrality  on 
their  part,  any  Russian  or  Danish  merchant  ships  should  happen  to 
be  insulted,  pillaged,  or  taken  by  the  ships  of  war  or  privateers  of  one 
or  the  other  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  the  Minister  of  the  offended 
party  at  the  Court  whose  ships  of  war  or  privateers  have  been  guilty 
of  the  said  act  shall  make  proper  representations ;  he  shall  demand 
restitution  of  the  seized  merchant  ship  and  shall  insist  upon  a  reason- 
able compensation  for  the  damages,  as  well  as  upon  a  complete  satis- 
faction for  the  insult  offered  to  the  flag  of  his  sovereign.  The  Min- 
ister of  the  other  high  contracting  Party  shall  second  and  support 
these  representations  in  the  most  serious  and  efficacious  manner,  and 
thus  they  shall  continue  jointly  and  unanimously  until  their  request 
is  granted.  But  in  case  of  a  refusal,  or  any  unreasonable  delay  from 
time  to  time  to  redress  these  grievances,  Their  aforesaid  Majesties 
do  hereby  declare,  that  they  will  make  use  of  reprisals  towards  that 
Power  that  refuses  to  do  them  justice,  and  will  immediately  unite,  in 
the  most  efficacious  means,  to  execute  these  just  reprisals. 

Article  8 

In  case  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  Powers,  or  both  together  should 
be  disturbed,  molested,  or  attacked,  in  consequence  or  in  contempt  of 
this  convention,  or  for  any  cause  whatever  relative  thereto,  it  is  hereby 
stipulated  and  agreed,  that  the  two  Powers  shall  immediately  act  in 
concert  for  their  mutual  and  reciprocal  defense,  and  shall  employ  and 
unite  all  their  forces  to  obtain  a  proper  satisfaction,  as  well  for  the 
insult  offered  to  their  flag,  as  for  the  losses  sustained  by  their  respec- 
tive subjects. 

Article  9 

This  convention  shall  be  in  full  force  as  long  as  this  present  war 
shall  last;  and  the  engagements  contained  therein  shall  serve  as  the 
basis  for  all  future  engagements  and  treaties  that  circumstances  may 
cause  to  be  concluded  on  the  outbreak  of  fresh  maritime  wars  which 
mav  hereafter  unfortunately  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  Europe.     As 


304  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

to  the  rest,  all  that  has  been  stipulated  and  agreed  upon,  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  permanent  and  shall  constitute  the  law  to  be  applied  in 
matters  pertaining  to  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  in  cases 
involving  the  rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  10 

As  the  aim  and  chief  object  of  this  convention  is  to  secure  general 
liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation.  Their  Majesties  the  Empress  of 
Russia  and  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  do  hereby  consent, 
and  engage  themselves  reciprocally,  to  permit  other  neutral  Powers 
to  accede  thereto ;  and  by  adopting  the  principles  thereof  these  Powers 
so  acceding  shall  share  in  the  obligations  as  well  as  the  advantages  of 
the  said  convention. 

Article  11 

And  in  order  that  the  belligerent  Powers  may  have  no  pretext  for 
pretending  to  be  unacquainted  with  these  engagements  between  Their 
said  Majesties,  the  high  contracting  Parties  do  hereby  promise,  that 
they  will  separately  acquaint  the  belligerent  Powers  with  the  measures 
they  have  taken,  which  are  the  less  hostile  as  they  are  in  no  way  detri- 
mental to  any  other  Power,  but  have  only  for  object  the  security  of 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 

Article  12 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting  Par- 
ties, and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged,  in  good  and  due  form, 
within  the  term  of  six  weeks  from  the  date  hereof,  or  sooner  if  pos- 
sible. In  virtue  whereof  we,  whose  names  are  hereunto  written,  being 
properly  invested  with  full  powers  to  that  efTect,  have  signed  and 
sealed  this  present  convention. 

Done  at  Copenhagen,  July  9,  1780. 

[L.  S.]   Charles  d'Osten,  called  Sackek 

[L.  S.]   O.  Thott 

[L.  S.]   J.  ScHACK  Rathlow 

[L.  S.]   J.  Eickstedt 

[L.  S.]  A.  P.  Bernstorff 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  305 

Separate  Articles  Additional  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neu- 
trality between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway  of  July  9, 
1780^ 

Article  I 

As  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  have  always  been  equally  interested 
in  protecting  the  security  and  tranquillity  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  in 
keeping  it  free  from  the  disturbances  of  the  war  and  privateering — a 
system  the  more  just  and  natural  since  all  the  Powers  whose  States 
border  thereon  enjoy  the  most  profound  peace, — they  have  mutually 
agreed  to  continue  to  maintain  that  it  is  a  closed  sea,  incontestably 
such  by  its  situation,  on  which  all  nations  should  and  may  navigate 
in  peace  and  enjoy  all  the  advantages  of  perfect  tranquillity,  and  to 
adopt  to  this  end  among  themselves  measures  capable  of  guaranteeing 
this  sea  and  its  coasts  from  all  hostilities,  piracy,  and  acts  of  violence. 
They  will  also  maintain  the  tranquillity  of  the  North  Sea  off  their 
coasts,  in  so  far  as  the  circumstances  and  the  interests  of  their  States 
may  render  it  necessary. 

Articlf.  2 

Their  said  Majesties,  desiring  nothing  more  ardently  than  the  res- 
toration of  peace  based  upon  equitable  principles,  sentiments  with 
which  the  love  of  humanity  and  the  desire  to  prevent  the  further 
shedding  of  blood  has  inspired  them  since  the  beginning  of  the  dis- 
sensions which  now  divide  Europe,  mutually  promise  to  devote  them- 
selves to  this  same  object,  to  consider  the  means  which  may  accomplish 
this  purpose,  and  when  the  opportunity  presents  itself,  to  seize  it  and 
to  cooperate  with  sentiments  of  friendship  and  of  confidence  in  so 
salutary  an  endeavor. 

Article  3 

Since  the  situation  of  the  places  makes  very  short  the  period  during 
which  the  fleets  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  can  operate  outside  of  the 
Baltic  for  the  protection  of  neutral  commerce  on  the  other  seas.  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  engages  to  receive  in  his 
ports  and  to  treat  on  absolutely  the  same  footing  as  his  own,  all  Rus- 
sian ships  or  vessels  that  may  enter  therein  to  pass  the  winter,  to 
furnish  them  from  her  warehouses  with  equipment  and  provisions  of 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  649. 


306  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

all  kinds  of  which  the  crew  may  have  need  at  the  same  prices  at  which 
such  equipment  and  provisions  are  furnished  to  the  vessels  of  Her 
Majesty ;  in  a  word,  to  make  all  necessary  arrangements  for  the  proper 
care  of  these  vessels  and  their  crews. 

Article  4 

If  it  should  be  found  necessary  to  join  the  two  squadrons,  this  will 
be  done  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  perfect  equality,  and 
when  one  or  more  vessels  happen  to  be  together,  that  one  of  the  com- 
manding ofiicers  who  has  the  higher  rank,  or  in  case  they  are  both 
of  the  same  rank,  the  one  who  is  senior  in  that  rank,  shall  take  com- 
mand of  the  war-ships  and  frigates  of  both  nations.  In  general,  an 
effort  will  he  made  to  arrange  the  cruising,  so  far  as  possible  without 
a  formal  junction,  in  such  a  way  as  to  form  a  kind  of  chain  and  to 
give  each  other  aid  in  case  of  need.  As  to  salutes,  they  shall  always 
be  in  conformity  with  the  stipulations  of  the  conventions  between  the 
two  nations. 

Article  5 

At  the  more  or  less  distant  time  when  peace  shall  have  been  restored 
among  the  belligerent  Powers,  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  shall  use 
their  best  efforts  with  the  maritime  Powers  in  general  to  bring  about 
the  universal  acceptance  and  recognition  in  all  naval  wars  which  may 
arise  hereafter  of  the  system  of  neutrality  and  the  principles  estab- 
lished in  the  present  convention,  forming  the  basis  of  a  universal 
maritime  code. 

Article  6 

As  soon  as  this  convention  shall  he  ratified  and  the  exchange  of 
ratifications  shall  have  been  made,  the  high  contracting  Parties  shall 
take  care  to  communicate  it,  with  the  exception  of  the  separate  arti- 
cles, in  good  faith  and  conjointly  and  with  one  accord,  through  their 
Ministers  accredited  to  foreign  Courts,  and  specifically  to  those  which 
are  at  present  at  war.  In  order  that  they  may  proceed  uniformly  to 
this  end,  there  is  attached  hereto  the  form  of  the  instrument  which 
the  respective  Ministers  shall  transmit  on  this  occasion. 

These  separate  articles  shall  be  considered  and  regarded  as  form- 
ing a  part  of  the  convention  itself  and  shall  have  the  same  force  and 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  307 

effect  as  though  they  were  inserted  word  for  word  in  the  said  con- 
vention concluded  on  the  same  day  between  the  high  contracting  Par- 
ties. They  shall  be  ratified  in  the  same  manner  and  ratifications  shall 
be  exchanged  at  the  same  time. 

In  faith  whereof  we,  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
have  signed  them  and  affixed  thereto  the  seals  of  our  arms. 

Done  at  Copenhagen,  the  9th  day  of  the  month  of  July,  in  the  year 
of  grace  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty. 

[L.  S.]   Charles  d'Osten,  called  Sacken 

[L.  S.]   O.  Thott 

[L.  S.]   O.  ScHACK  Ratiilow 

[L.  S.]    J-    H.    ElCKSTEDT 

[L.  S.]   A.  p.  Bernstorff 


Declaration  of  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  July  21,  1780^ 

Ever  since  the  beginning  of  the  present  war,  the  King  has  taken 
particular  care  to  manifest  his  intentions  to  all  Europe.  He  imposed 
unto  himself  the  law  of  a  perfect  neutrality ;  he  fulfilled  all  the  duties 
thereof,  with  the  most  scrupulous  exactitude;  and  in  consequence 
thereof,  he  thought  himself  entitled  to  all  the  prerogatives  naturally 
appertaining  to  the  qualification  of  a  sovereign  perfectly  neuter.  But 
notwithstanding  this,  his  commercial  subjects  have  been  obliged  to 
claim  his  protection,  and  His  Majesty  has  found  himself  under  the 
necessity  to  grant  it  to  them. 

To  effect  this,  the  King  ordered  last  year  a  certain  number  of  men 
of  war  to  be  fitted  out.  He  employed  a  part  thereof  on  the  coasts  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  rest  served  as  convoys  for  the  Swedish  mer- 
chant ships  in  the  different  seas  which  the  commerce  of  his  subjects 
required  them  to  navigate.  He  acquainted  the  several  belligerent 
Powers  with  these  measures  and  was  preparing  to  continue  the  same 
during  the  course  of  this  year,  when  other  Courts,  who  had  likewise 
adopted  a  perfect  neutrality,  communicated  their  sentiments  unto  him. 


^Annual  Register,  1780,  p.  353.     For  a  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  651. 


308  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

which  the  King  found  entirely  conformable  to  his  own,  and  tending  to 
the  same  object. 

The  Empress  of  Russia  caused  a  declaration  to  be  delivered  to  the 
Courts  of  London,  Versailles,  and  Madrid,  in  which  she  acquainted 
them  of  her  resolution  to  protect  the  commerce  of  her  subjects,  and 
to  defend  the  universal  rights  and  prerogatives  of  neutral  nations. 
This  declaration  was  founded  upon  such  just  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations  and  the  subsisting  treaties  that  it  was  impossible  to  call  them 
into  question.  The  King  found  them  entirely  concordant  with  his 
own  cause,  and  with  the  treaty  concluded  in  the  year  1666,^  between 
Sweden  and  France;  and  His  Majesty  could  not  forbear  to  acknowl- 
edge and  to  adopt  the  same  principles,  not  only  with  regard  to  those 
Powers,  with  whom  the  said  treaties  are  in  force,  but  also  with  regard 
to  such  others  as  are  already  engaged  in  the  present  war,  or  may  be 
involved  therein  hereafter,  and  with  whom  the  King  has  no  treaties  to 
reclaim.  It  is  the  universal  law,  and  when  there  are  no  particular 
engagements  existing,  it  becomes  obligatory  upon  all  nations. 

In  consequence  thereof,  the  King  declares  hereby  again,  "That  he 
will  observe  the  same  neutrality,  and  with  the  same  exactitude,  as  he 
has  hitherto  done.  He  will  enjoin  all  his  subjects,  under  rigorous 
pains,  not  to  act  in  any  manner  whatever  contrary  to  the  duties  which 
a  strict  neutrality  imposes  unto  them ;  but  he  will  effectually  protect 
their  lawful  commerce,  by  all  possible  means,  whenever  they  carry  on 
the  same,  conformably  to  the  principles  here  above  mentioned. 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  Danish  Declaration,  July  25, 

1780- 

During  the  whole  course  of  the  defensive  war  which  the  King  has 
been  waging  against  France  and  Spain,  His  Majesty  has  constantly 
respected  the  rights  of  all  friendly  and  neutral  Powers,  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  his  different  treaties  with  them  and  with  the  clearest 


^Treaty  of  February  16,  1666.     Dumont,  vol.  6,  pt.  3,  p.  S3. 
^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccucil.  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  182.     Presented 
by  Mr.  Eden  on  August  7  of  the  same  year. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  309 

and  most  generally  recognized  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  the 
common  law  of  those  nations  which  have  no  special  conventions. 

Such  conventions  have  long  existed  between  Great  Britain  and 
Denmark.  The  flag  of  His  Danish  Majesty  and  the  commerce  of  his 
subjects  have  been  respected  and  shall  continue  so  to  be,  in  con- 
formity with  the  treaties  existing  between  the  two  nations,  which  are 
the  foundation  and  the  support  of  that  friendship  which  has  united 
them  for  more  than  a  century.  Their  mutual  rights  and  duties  are 
clearly  set  forth  in  these  solemn  engagements,  which  would  become 
worthless  if  they  could  be  changed  otherwise  than  by  mutual  agree- 
ment. They  remain  in  full  force  at  the  present  time  and  are  equally 
binding  upon  both  contracting  Parties ;  they  constitute  an  inviolable 
law  for  both.  The  King  has  followed  and  will  continue  to  follow  it 
as  such  with  that  spirit  of  equity  which  has  guided  all  his  acts,  and 
with  a  sincere  friendship  for  the  King  of  Denmark,  in  the  expecta- 
tion of  finding  and  in  the  conviction  that  he  will  always  find  in  His 
Danish  Majesty  similar  sentiments  and  a  like  conduct. 

Stormont 

London,  July  25,  rySo. 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Danish  Declaration,  July  27, 

1780^ 

The  King's  reply  to  the  last  declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia 
made  known  how  well  calculated  are  the  principles  of  His  Majesty 
with  regard  to  the  freedom  of  the  seas  to  bring  about  security  and 
tranquillity  for  neutral  vessels.  By  his  sincere  commendation  of  the 
views  and  measures  of  the  Empress  of  Russia,  His  Majesty  an- 
nounced in  advance  to  the  Powers  which  this  Princess  invited  to  make 
common  cause  with  her  what  they  might  expect  from  his  justice  and 
his  love  for  the  general  good. 

Since  the  King  of  Denmark  has  now  made  known  his  determina- 
tion to  uphold  a  system,  the  establishment  of  which  is  regarded  by 
His  Majesty  as  the  greatest  benefit  that  the  present  war  has  been  able 
to  bring  about  for  Europe,  the  King  hastens  to  inform  His  Danish 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  180. 


310  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Majesty  of  his  entire  approval  of  the  content  of  the  declaration  which 
this  Prince  has  had  transmitted  to  him.  The  wise  and  clear  laws, 
whose  execution  are  demanded  by  the  King  of  Denmark,  are  in  full 
accord  with  the  provisions  and  orders  of  His  Majesty  at  the  very 
beginning  of  this  war,  looking  to  the  safeguarding  of  neutral  vessels 
from  all  the  injuries,  to  which,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  they 
should  not  be  exposed.  His  Majesty  recently  issued  additional 
orders  to  the  officers  of  his  navy  and  to  privateers  carrying  his  flag 
not  to  disturb  in  any  manner  neutral  navigation;  he  did  not  need  any 
instigation  to  order  that  Danish  vessels  in  particular  should  be  treated 
as  belonging  to  a  friendly  Power  which  respected  the  laws  of  the  sea 
and  should  enjoy  all  the  advantages  of  neutrality.  His  Majesty  hopes 
that  the  King  of  Denmark,  pursuant  to  the  principles  contained  in 
his  declaration,  will  likewise  be  good  enough  to  reiterate  the  order  to 
his  subjects  to  conduct  themselves  in  every  respect  in  conformity  with 
the  usages  which  a  wise  foresight  has  established  to  prevent  abuse  of 
freedom  of  navigation.  The  more  favorable  a  belligerent  Power 
shows  itself  to  be  toward  a  neutral  nation,  the  more  scrupulously 
should  the  latter  keep  within  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  law  of 
nations. 

His  Danish  Majesty,  by  joining  with  the  Empress  of  Russia  and 
the  other  Powers  that  shall  embrace  the  same  cause,  will  aid  in  estab- 
lishing for  the  future  the  status  of  neutral  vessels,  in  order  that  the 
calamities  that  follow  in  the  wake  of  war  may  be  diminished  and  that 
the  whole  of  Europe  may  no  longer  be  made  a  victim  in  quarrels 
which  may  arise  between  one  or  more  of  the  nations  of  that  continent. 

The  King  desires  that  His  Danish  Majesty  shall  reap  the  full  ben- 
efit that  he  expects  from  his  prudence  and  requests  him  to  rest  assured 
that  no  wrong  will  be  perpetrated  by  his  subjects  on  Danish  naviga- 
tors, or,  if  such  a  thing  should  happen,  that  reparation  shall  be  made 
with  all  possible  celerity. 

His  Majesty  expresses  his  most  sincere  hope  that  the  cooperation 
of  the  Powers,  which  are  equally  interested  in  the  freedom  of  the 
seas,  may  render  immutable  laws  whose  equity  he  recognizes  authori- 
tatively. He  is  especially  pleased  to  assure  the  King  of  Denmark  on 
this  occasion  of  his  never-ending  desire  that  the  Danish  nation  shall 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  the  sentiments  of  friendship  and  confidence  which 
unite  the  two  Courts. 

X'eksailles,  July  2/,  i/8o. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  311 

Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Sweden, 

August  1,  1780^ 

Whereas  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  neutral  Powers  is  greatly 
injured  by  the  present  maritime  war  which  has  broken  out  between 
Great  Britain,  on  the  one  part,  and  France  and  Spain,  on  the  other 
part,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and  Her  Majesty  the  Empress 
of  all  the  Russias,  always  solicitous  to  harmonize  their  dignity  and 
their  concern  for  the  security  and  happiness  of  their  subjects  with  the 
respect  which  they  have  so  often  manifested  for  the  rights  of  peoples 
in  general,  have  found  it  necessary,  in  the  present  circumstances,  to 
conform  their  conduct  to  these  sentiments. 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  in  her  declaration  to  the 
belligerent  Powers,  dated  February  28,  1780,^  has  plainly  stated,  in  the 
face  of  all  Europe,  the  principles  which  derive  from  the  primitive  law 
of  nations,  and  which  Her  Majesty  claims  and  adopts  as  a  rule  of  her 
conduct  in  the  present  war.  As  this  attention  of  Her  Imperial  Maj- 
esty, in  watching  over  the  common  rights  of  nations,  has  been  honored 
with  the  approbation  of  all  neutral  Powers,  they  have  united  in  a 
cause  which  concerns  the  defense  of  their  most  essential  interests, 
and  they  have  been  impelled  seriously  to  undertake  an  object  of  great 
importance  both  for  the  present  time  and  for  all  time  to  come,  as  it 
tends  to  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  and  invariable  system  of 
the  rights,  prerogatives,  limits,  and  engagements  of  neutrality. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  convinced  of  the  justice  of  these 
principles,  likewise  established  and  claimed  them  in  the  declaration, 
in  conformity  with  that  of  the  Empress  of  Russia,  which  on  July  21, 
1780,^  he  caused  to  be  communicated  to  the  three  belligerent  Powers ; 
and  in  order  to  sustain  these  principles.  His  Swedish  Majesty  has 
ordered  a  considerable  part  of  his  fleet  to  be  fitted  out.  From  these 
proceedings  have  arisen  that  harmony  and  unanimity  in  which  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the 
Russias  have  thought  it  advisable,  in  consequence  of  their  mutual 
friendship  and  reciprocal  confidence  and  the  similarity  of  the  interests 
of  their  subjects,  solemnly  to  sanction  in  a  formal  convention  the 
mutual  engagements  to  be  contracted  with  each  other.     To  this  end 


^Translation.  For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  652.  Accepted  by  the 
States-General  of  the  Netherlands  on  November  20,  1780  (post,  p.  325),  and 
act  of  accession  signed  at  Petersburg  on  January  4,  1781    (post,  p.  346). 

-Ante.  p.  273. 

^Antc,  p.  307. 


312  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Their  said   Majesties   have  chosen   and  named  as   their  plenipoten- 
tiaries, to  wit: 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  Frederic  Baron  de  Nolken,  his 
Envoy  Extraordinary  at  the  Court  of  Russia,  Chamberlain.  Com- 
mander of  the  Royal  Order  of  the  Polar  Star  and  Knight  of  the 
Orders  of  the  Sword  and. of  St.  John;  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of 
all  the  Russias,  Count  Nikita  Panin,  her  present  Privy  Councilor, 
Senator,  present  Chamberlain  and  Knight  of  the  Orders  of  St.  An- 
drew, St.  Alexander-Newsky  and  St.  Anne,  and  John  Count  d'Oster- 
mann,  her  Vice  Chancellor,  Privy  Councilor  and  Knight  of  the  Orders 
of  St.  Alexander-Newsky  and  St.  Anne ;  who,  after  having  exchanged 
their  full  powers,  found  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  and  con- 
cluded the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

That  Their  aforesaid  Majesties  are  sincerely  determined  to  main- 
tain, constantly,  the  most  perfect  friendship  and  harmony  with  the 
different  Powers  at  present  engaged  in  war,  and  to  observe  the  most 
scrupulous  neutrality;  and  in  consequence  thereof  they  declare,  that 
adhering  to  this  determination,  the  prohibition  of  all  contraband  trade 
with  the  Powers  at  present  at  war,  or  with  those  who  may  hereafter 
be  engaged  therein,  shall  be  strictly  observed  by  their  respective  sub- 
jects. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  all  errors  and  misunderstandings  with  regard  to  commodi- 
ties which  shall  be  deemed  contraband.  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Sweden  and  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  do  hereby 
declare  that  they  shall  only  acknowledge  such  articles  to  be  contra- 
band commodities  as  are  included  and  mentioned  in  the  treaties  now 
subsisting  between  their  respective  Courts  and  the  one  or  the  other 
of  the  belligerent  Powers.  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  refers 
specifically  in  this  regard  to  Article  11  of  his  treaty  of  commerce 
with  Great  Britain^  and  to  the  terms  of  the  preliminary  treaty  of 
commerce  concluded  between  the  two  Crowns  of  Sweden  and  France 
in  1741- ;  and  although  in  this  latter  the  definition  of  contraband  is  not 


iTreaty  of  October  21,  1661.     Collection   of  Trcatys   (London.   1732),  vol.  3, 
p.  240.     For  Article  11,  see  fost,  p.  620)!. 

^Treaty  of  April  25,  1741.    Wenck.  vol.  2.  p.  5. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  313 

specifically  set  forth,  nevertheless  as  the  two  kingdoms  stipulated 
therein  to  regard  each  other  as  gens  amicissima,  and  since,  moreover, 
Sweden  has  reserved  to  itself  the  benefits  enjoyed  in  France,  as  of 
ancient  right,  by  the  Hanseatic  towns,  benefits  solemnly  confirmed  by 
the  treaties  of  Utrecht,  the  King  has  nothing  to  add  thereto.  As  re- 
gards Spain,  since  His  Majesty  has  no  special  treaty  with  that  Crown, 
he  extends  to  it  the  obligations  of  the  aforesaid  treaties,  which  are 
founded  entirely  on  natural  law.  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias,  on  her  part,  refers  to  Articles  10  and  11  of  her  treaty  of 
commerce  with  Great  Britain.^  She  extends  the  obligations  thereof, 
which  are  founded  entirely  on  natural  law,  to  the  Crowns  of  France 
and  Spain,  which  up  to  the  present  time  have  not  bound  themselves 
with  her  Empire  by  any  formal  engagement  relating  purely  to  com- 
merce. 

Article  3 

As  by  these  means  all  contraband  goods  and  commodities  are  deter- 
mined and  ascertained  conformably  to  the  treaties  and  express  stipula- 
tions subsisting  between  the  high  contracting  Parties  and  the  bellige- 
rent Powers,  and  chiefly  in  the  treaty  of  commerce,  concluded  between 
Sweden  and  Great  Britain  on  October  21,  1661,  and  the  preliminary 
treaty  of  commerce  between  Sweden  and  France,  concluded  in  1741, 
as  well  as  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded  between  Russia  and 
Great  Britain  on  June  20,  1766.  The  will  and  intention  of  His  Maj- 
esty the  King  of  Sweden  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias 
are  that  all  other  commerce  shall  be  and  remain  free. 

Their  said  Majesties  having  already  invoked  in  their  declaration 
to  the  belligerent  Powers  the  general  principles  of  neutral  law.  whence 
the  liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation  and  the  rights  of  neutral  na- 
tions derive,  are  resolved  not  to  allow  these  rights  to  depend  any 
longer  upon  an  arbitrary  interpretation,  dictated  by  partial  advantages 
and  momentary  interests.  With  this  view,  Their  said  Majesties  have 
agreed : 

(1)  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at 
war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  wnth  the  exception  of  con- 
traband merchandise. 


iTreaty  of  June  20,  1766.     See  post.  pp.  342-3. 


314  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  sta- 
tioned its  vessels  siifificiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access 
thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause  and 
when  the  facts  are  perfectly  evident ;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  with- 
out delay ;  that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and 
legal;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  granted  to  vessels 
which  have  suffered  loss  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  in  each  case  be  rendered  for  the  insult  to  Their  Majesties' 
flag. 

Article  4 

In  order  to  obtain  this  end  and  to  protect  the  general  commerce  of 
their  subjects,  founded  upon  the  principles  laid  down  above,  His  Maj- 
esty the  King  of  Sweden  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias 
have  resolved  to  fit  out  separately  a  proportionate  number  of  ships 
of  the  line  and  frigates ;  and  the  squadrons  of  these  respective  Powers 
shall  repair  to  such  latitudes,  and  shall  serve  as  convoys  to  the  trading 
ships  of  their  respective  subjects,  wherever  the  commerce  and  navi- 
gation of  each  nation  shall  require  it. 

Article  5 

In  case  any  merchant  ships  belonging  to  subjects  of  one  of  the  high 
contracting  Powers  should  happen  to  be  in  a  sea  or  latitude  where  no 
ships  of  war  of  their  sovereigns  are  stationed,  and  consequently  should 
be  unable  to  obtain  any  protection  from  the  forces  of  their  own  nation, 
the  commander  of  the  ships  of  war  of  the  other  Power,  upon  being 
duly  requested,  shall  immediately  afiford  them  all  necessary  assistance ; 
and  in  this  case,  it  is  hereby  stipulated  that  the  ships  and  frigates  of 
the  one  Power  shall  always  grant  the  necessary  protection  and  as- 
sistance to  the  trading  ships  of  the  other  Power ;  provided  always, 
that  those  who  shall  claim  such  assistance  or  protection  shall  not  carry 
on  any  illicit  trade  which  may  be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  neutrality. 

Article  6 

The  present  convention  shall  not  be  retroactive,  and  consequently 
neither  of  the  high  contracting  Powers  shall  take  cognizance  of  any 
differences  that  may  have  arisen  before  its  conclusion,  unless  the  mat- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUAIENTS  315 

ter  in  litigation  relates  to  acts  of  violence  which  are  still  continuing, 
and  which  may  tend  to  oppress  all  neutral  nations  in  Europe. 

Article  7 

If,  notwithstanding  the  vigilant  and  amicable  care  of  the  two  high 
contracting  Powers,  and  the  most  exact  observation  of  neutrality  on 
their  part,  any  merchant  ships  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  or 
of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  should  happen  to  be  in- 
sulted, pillaged,  or  taken  by  the  ships  of  war  or  privateers  of  one  or 
the  other  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  the  Minister  of  the  offended  party 
at  the  Court  whose  ships  of  war  or  privateers  have  been  guilty  of  the 
said  act  shall  make  proper  representations ;  he  shall  demand  restitu- 
tion of  the  seized  merchant  ship,  and  shall  insist  upon  reasonable 
compensation  for  the  damages,  as  well  as  upon  complete  satisfaction 
for  the  insult  offered  to  the  flag  of  his  sovereign.  The  Minister  of 
the  other  high  contracting  Party  shall  second  and  support  th.ese  repre- 
sentations in  the  most  serious  and  efficacious  manner,  and  thus  they 
shall  continue  jointly  and  unanimously  until  their  request  is  granted. 
But  in  case  of  a  refusal,  or  any  unreasonable  delay  from  time  to  time 
to  redress  these  grievances,  their  aforesaid  Majesties  do  hereby  de- 
clare that  they  will  make  use  of  reprisals  towards  that  Power  that 
refuses  to  do  them  justice,  and  will  immediately  unite,  in  the  most 
efficacious  means,  to  execute  these  just  reprisals. 

Article  8 

In  case  one  or  tne  other  of  the  two  Powers,  or  both  together,  should 
be  disturbed,  molested,  or  attacked,  in  consequence  or  in  contempt  of 
this  convention,  or  for  any  cause  whatever  relative  thereto,  it  is  hereby 
stipulated  and  agreed,  that  the  two  Powers  shall  immediately  act  in 
concert  for  their  mutual  and  reciprocal  defense,  and  shall  employ  and 
unite  all  their  forces  to  obtain  a  proper  satisfaction,  as  well  for  the 
insult  to  their  flag,  as  for  the  losses  sustained  by  their  respective  sub- 
jects. 

Article  9 

This  convention  shall  be  in  full  force  as  long  as  this  present  war 
shall  last ;  and  the  engagements  contained  therein  shall  serve  as  the 
basis  for  all  future  engagements  and  treaties  that  circumstances  may 
cause  to  be  concluded  on  the  outbreak  of  fresh  maritime  wars  which 


316  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

may  hereafter  unfortunately  disturb  the  tranquillity  of  Europe.  As 
to  the  rest,  all  that  has  been  stipulated  and  agreed  upon,  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  permanent  and  shall  constitute  the  law  to  be  applied  in  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  in  cases  in- 
volving the  rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  10 

As  the  aim  and  chief  object  of  this  convention  is  to  secure  general 
liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden 
and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  do  hereby  consent  and 
engage  themselves  reciprocally  to  permit  other  neutral  Powers  to  ac- 
cede thereto ;  and  by  adopting  the  principles  thereof,  these  Powers  so 
acceding  shall  share  in  the  obligations  as  well  as  the  advantages  of  the 
said  convention. 

Article  11 

And  in  order  that  the  belligerent  Powers  may  have  no  pretext  for 
pretending  to  be  unacquainted  with  these  engagements  between  Their 
said  Majesties,  the  high  contracting  Parties  do  hereby  promise  that 
they  will  separately  acquaint  the  belligerent  Powers  with  the  measures 
they  have  taken,  which  are  the  less  hostile  as  they  are  in  no  way  detri- 
mental to  any  other  Power,  but  have  only  for  object  the  security  of 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 

Article  12 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting 
Parties,  and  the  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  in  good  and  due  form, 
within  the  term  of  six  weeks  from  the  date  hereof,  or  sooner  if  pos- 
sible. In  virtue  whereof  we,  whose  names  are  hereunto  written, 
being  properly  invested  with  full  powers  to  that  effect,  have  signed 
and  sealed  this  present  convention. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  July  21/August  1,  in  the  year  of  grace  one 
thousand   seven   hundred  and  eighty. 

\L.  S.]  Frederic  Nolken 
[L.  S.]  Count  N.  Panin 
[L.  S.]   Count  John  d'Ostermann 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  317 

Separate  Articles  Additional  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neu- 
trality between  Russia  and  Sweden  of  August  1,  1780^ 

[These  six  articles  are  word  for  word  of  the  same  tenor  as  those 
between  Russia  and  Denmark,'  except  that  to  Article  3  between  Rus- 
sia and  Sweden  there  is  added:]  Her  Imperial  Majesty  undertakes 
the  same  obligations  with  respect  to  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden, 
and  her  commanding  officers  in  the  ports  of  the  Baltic  Sea  shall  con- 
sequently have  orders  to  follow  the  same  procedure  in  the  case  of 
Swedish  war-ships  and  all  Swedish  vessels,  when  they  are  so  re- 
quested. 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  London  to  the  Swedish  Declaration, 
August  3,  1780^ 

Throughout  the  entire  course  of  the  war  in  which  Great  Britain 
finds  herself  engaged  as  a  result  of  the  aggression  of  France  and 
Spain,  the  King  has  invariably  followed  those  principles  of  justice 
and  equity  which  guide  all  his  actions.  He  has  faithfully  fulfilled  all 
his  engagements  with  respect  to  friendly  and  neutral  Powers.  The 
flags  of  these  Powers  and  the  commerce  of  their  subjects  have  been 
respected  in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  these  engagements. 

Those  existing  between  Great  Britain  and  Sweden  are  clear  and 
formal  and  furnish  a  direct  reply  to  the  declaration  which  Baron 
Nolken  has  transmitted  by  the  express  orders  of  the  Court. 

The  12th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1661^  fixing  the  form  of  certificate 
with  which  vessels  must  be  provided  gives  the  following  reason  there- 
for: 

Ne    vero    libera    ejusmodi    navigatio,    aut    transitus    foederati 
unius,   ejusque   subditorum   ac   incolarum,   durante  bello   alterius 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  656. 
-Ante,  p.  305. 

^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  188. 
^Treaty  of  October  21,  1661.     Collection  of  Treatys,  vol.  3,  p.  240. 


318  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

foederati.  terra  marive  cum  aliis  gentibus,   fraudi  sit  alter!  con- 
foederato,  mercesque  et  bona  hostilia  occultari  possint.^ 

The  same  article  contains  a  precise  and  formal  stipulation,  namely : 

Si  hostis  bona  in  confoederati  navigio  reperiantur,  quod  ad 
hostem  pertinet,  praedae  solummodo  cedat,  quod  vero  ad  con- 
foederatum  illico  restituatur.- 

The  treaty  of  1666^  prescribes  the  same  certificate  and  gives  the 
same  reasons  therefor. 

Such  are  the  engagements  binding  the  two  nations,  which  can  not 
be  violated  without  impairing  the  friendship  which  has  so  long  existed 
between  them  and  of  which  these  engagements  are  the  foundation 
and  support. 

Treaties  can  be  changed  only  by  mutual  agreement  of  the  contract- 
ing Parties,  and  as  long  as  they  are  in  force,  they  are  equally  binding 
upon  both. 

The  King  shall,  therefore,  follow  his  engagements  with  Sweden  as 
a  sacred  and  inviolable  law,  and  he  shall  maintain  it  as  such. 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  France  to  the  Swedish  Declaration,  August  4, 

1780* 

The  King  has  constantly  desired  that  neutral  Powers  should  re- 
ceive no  injury  in  the  war  in  which  His  Majesty  is  engaged.  His 
orders  have  ensured  to  the  vessels  belonging  to  these  Powers  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  freedom  allowed  them  by  the  laws  of  the  sea,  and  if 


^Translation  :  Lest  the  free  navigation  or  intercourse  of  one  of  the  confed- 
erates and  his  subjects  and  inhabitants  by  land  or  sea,  with  other  nations,  while 
the  other  confederate  is  at  war,  should  be  carried  on  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
other  confederate,  and  lest  the  enemy's  goods  and  merchandize  should  be  con- 
cealed.    Collection  of  Trcatys,  p.  247. 

^Translation  :  If  the  goods  of  the  enemy  are  found  in  the  ships  of  the  con- 
federate, that  part  only  which  belongs  to  the  enemy  shall  be  made  prize,  and  the 
other  which  belongs  to  the  confederate  shall  be  immediately  restored.  Ibid. 
p.  250. 

^Treaty  of  February  16,  1666.     Dumont,  vol.  6,  pt.  3,  p.  83. 

^Translation.     French  text.  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  186. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  319 

some  individual  navigators  have  had  cause  for  complaint  in  that  they 
have  suffered  by  act  of  subjects  of  His  Majesty,  they  have  received 
prompt  and  equitable  justice. 

His  Majesty  has  seen  with  satisfaction  in  the  declaration  trans- 
mitted to  him  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  Sweden^  that  the  intention 
of  this  Prince  was  to  continue  to  protect  the  navigation  of  his  sub- 
jects against  all  violence,  that  His  Swedish  Majesty  had  even  resolved 
to  take  measures  in  concert  with  other  Courts,  and  particularly  with 
the  Empress  of  Russia,  for  the  more  effectual  attainment  of  this  end. 
The  King  can  only  express  the  hope  that  the  cooperation  of  His 
Swedish  Majesty  with  these  Powers  may  bring  about  the  good  re- 
sults which  they  intend,  that  the  sea  may  be  free,  in  conformity  with 
the  law  of  nations  and  with  treaties,  which  are  recognized  as  being 
merely  an  explanation  of  that  law;  that,  finally,  all  nations  which  are 
not  taking  part  in  the  war  may  not  suffer  from  its  evils. 

His  Majesty  has  repeated  to  the  officers  of  his  navy  and  to  the 
privateers  that  carry  his  flag,  orders  in  accord  with  the  principles 
upon  which  the  security  and  tranquillity  of  all  neutral  vessels  must 
rest.  With  still  more  reason  the  subjects  of  the  King  of  Sweden 
must  be  assured  that  they  will  suffer  no  mishap  at  the  hands  of  the 
subjects  of  His  Most  Christian  Majesty,  since  no  Frenchman  is  igno- 
rant of  the  alliance  and  friendship  which  have  long  existed  between 
the  two  Crowns. 

Inasmuch  as  the  precautions  taken  by  His  Swedish  Majesty  will 
keep  Swedish  navigators  w^ithin  the  bounds  of  the  strictest  neutrality, 
this  wall  be  a  further  reason  for  them  to  insist  upon  the  execution  of 
the  laws  of  which  their  master  shows  himself  to  be  the  zealous  pro- 
tector, laws  which  the  King  ardently  hopes  to  see  adopted  by  the 
unanimous  cooperation  of  all  the  Powers,  so  that  none  may  have  to 
suft'er  from  the  war  if  the  sovereign  takes  no  part  therein,  when  he 
shall  have  conformed  to  the  rules  prescribed  for  the  prevention  of  the 
abuse  of  the  neutral  flag. 

Versailles,  August  4,  1780. 

^Ante,  p.  307. 


320  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Reply  of  the  Court  of  Spain  to  the  Danish  Declaration,  August  7, 

1780^ 

His  Catholic  Majesty,  in  the  reply  which  he  had  made  to  the  dec- 
laration that  the  Empress  of  Russia  presented  to  him  through  her 
Minister  residing  at  his  Court,  in  all  respects  similar  to  that  which  by 
order  of  the  said  sovereign  was  presented  to  the  other  belligerent 
Courts,  declared  in  the  most  positive  terms  that  his  views  with  regard 
to  the  rights  of  neutral  nations  in  their  navigation  and  commerce  were 
entirely  in  accord  with  those  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  and  the  or- 
ders immediately  given  to  observe  with  respect  to  vessels  under  the 
Russian  flag  a  course  of  conduct  and  a  manner  of  treatment  in  con- 
formity with  the  principles  which  the  said  Princess  declared  it  to  be 
her  desire  to  follow  and  uphold,  are  a  proof  of  the  sincerity  and  the 
good  faith  with  which  the  King  is  acting;  and  so  is  the  promptness 
with  which  he  ordered  the  same  provisions  in  favor  of  Dutch  vessels, 
as  soon  as  the  States-General  declared  their  adhesion  to  the  system 
of  the  Court  of  Russia.  Now  that  the  King  of  Denmark  (by  a  dec- 
laration signed  by  his  Minister  of  State  on  July  8  last^)  has  formally 
announced  that  his  principles  with  respect  to  the  rights  and  freedom 
which  neutral  nations  should  enjoy  in  their  lawful  commerce  in  time 
of  war  are  those  which  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg  has  adopted  and 
which  His  Majesty  is  likewise  determined  to  uphold  in  favor  of  the 
Danish  flag  and  the  f/ee  navigation  of  his  subjects,  His  Catholic 
Majesty  does  not  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  accept  this  explanation  of 
His  Danish  Majesty  and  to  declare  that  at  the  very  outset  he  gave 
orders  that  the  same  rules  be  observed  with  regard  to  Danish  vessels 
as  with  Russian  and  Dutch  ships.  Consequently  the  said  vessels  shall 
not  be  arrested  by  the  commanders  of  his  royal  fleets,  nor  by  the  cap- 
tains of  privateers  that  may  encounter  them  at  sea,  although  they 
may  have  on  board  effects  belonging  to  the  enemies  of  Spain,  pro- 
vided they  be  not  such  effects  as  have  been  declared  by  general  trea- 
ties contraband  in  time  of  war,  and  these  vessels  shall  be  shown  every 
possible  consideration  in  the  matter  of  the  notification  and  observance 
of  the  declaration  of  March  13  of  the  present  year,^  pertaining  to  the 
blockade  of  Gibraltar,  of  which  Denmark  was  notified,  it  being  under- 
stood that  those  attempting  to  sail  to  that  port  shall  be  exposed  to  the 


^Translation.     French  text.  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  183. 
^Ante,  p.  297. 
^Martens,  ibid.,  p.  92. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  321 

peril  set  forth  in  Article  4  of  the  said  declaration.  But  the  Catholic 
King,  in  following  this  line  of  action,  can  not  doubt  that  Denmark 
and  the  other  Powers  that  have  determined  or  shall  determine  to  up- 
hold their  rights  and  to  defend  the  freedom  of  their  flags  shall  be 
likewise  impartial  in  appraising  and  in  responding  in  kind  to  the  con- 
duct adopted  toward  them  by  the  Powers  at  war,  as  they  are  obliged 
to  do  by  their  own  system  and  the  just  maxims  which  have  been  so 
openly  adopted. 

St.  Ildephonso,  August  /,  lySo. 

Count  de  Florida-Blanca 


Declaration  of  September  7,  1780,  by  which  His  Danish  Majesty 
accedes  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between 
Russia  and  Sweden^ 

Christian  VII,  by  the  grace  of  God,  King  of  Denmark,  Norway,  the 
Vandals  and  the  Goths,  Duke  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  Stormarn,  Dit- 
marsen  and  Oldenburg,  etc.,  etc.,  make  known  that,  having  been  in- 
vited to  accede  as  a  principal  contracting  Party  to  the  convention  con- 
cluded and  ratified  on  July  21 /August  1.  1780,-  at  St  Petersburg, 
between  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Sweden,  similar  in  all  respects  to  the  convention  con- 
cluded betv/een  us  and  Her  said  Imperial  Majesty,  and  signed  at 
Copenhagen  on  July  9,  1780.=^  We  formally  certify  by  this  declaration 
that,  having  equally  at  heart  the  maintenance  of  the  general  freedom 
of  neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  and  being  animated  in  this  re- 
spect by  the  same  sentiments  as  Their  said  Majesties,  we  accede  in 
all  due  form  as  a  contracting  Party  to  the  aforesaid  convention,  and 
we  bind  ourself  and  our  successors  by  all  the  stipulations  contained 
in  its  clauses  and  articles,  as  well  as  in  the  six  separate  articles  thereto 
annexed,  and  we  likewise  accede  entirely  to  the  form  and  tenor 
thereof.     We  understand  that  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  207. 
^Ante,  p.  311. 
^Ante,  p.  299. 


322  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  will  likewise  declare  by 
a  formal  instrument  the  receipt  and  acceptance  of  this  our  declaration 
and  will  recognize  us  as  a  principal  contracting  Party  with  respect  to 
the  said  convention;  and  as  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  having 
been  invited  likewise,  has  also  acceded  in  the  same  manner  and  in 
the  same  sense  to  the  exactly  similar  convention  concluded  between 
us  and  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  and  signed  at 
Copenhagen  on  July  9,  1780.  We  solemnly  declare  that  we  accept 
his  accession  and  that  we  recognize  His  Swedish  Majesty  as  a  prin- 
cipal contracting  Party  of  that  convention  and  of  the  six  separate 
articles  thereto  annexed.  In  faith  of  which  we  have  signed  the 
present  act  of  accession  and  of  acceptance  with  our  own  hand  and 
have  thereto  affixed  the  great  seal  of  our  Crown. 

Done  and  given  at  our  Castle  of  Fredensburg,  this  7th  day  of  the 
month  of  July  [September?],  in  the  year  of  grace  one  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  eighty,  and  of  our  reign  the  fifteenth. 

CHRISTIAN   R. 

A.  V.  Bernstorff 


Declaration  of  September  9,  1780,  by  w^hich  His  Swedish  Majesty 
accedes  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between 
Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway^ 

Gustavus,  by  the  grace  of  God,  King  of  Sweden,  of  the  Goths  and 
the  Vandals,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.,  heir  to  Norway,  Duke  of  Schleswig- 
Holstein,  of  Stormarn  and  of  Ditmarsen,  Count  of  Oldenburg  and 
of  Delmenhorst,  etc.,  etc.,  make  known  that,  having  been  invited  to 
accede,  as  a  principal  contracting  Party,  to  the  convention  concluded 
and  ratified  on  July  9  of  the  present  year  at  Copenhagen,  between 
Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Denmark,-  in  all  respects  similar  to  the  convention  concluded  be- 
tween Her  said  Imperial  Majesty,  signed  at  Petersburg  on  July  21/ 
August  1  of  the  present  year  and  ratified  by  us  on  the  9th  of  Sep- 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  205. 
'Ante,  p.  299. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  323 

tember  following/  we  formally  certify  by  this  present  declaration  that, 
having  equally  at  heart  the  maintenance  of  the  general  freedom  of 
neutral  commerce  and  navigation,  and  being  animated  in  this  respect 
by  the  same  sentiments  as  Their  said  Majesties,  we  accede  in  all  due 
form,  as  a  principal  contracting  Party,  to  the  said  convention ;  and  we 
bind  ourself  and  our  successors  by  all  the  stipulations  contained  in  the 
clauses  and  separate  articles  thereto  annexed,  and  we  likewise  accede 
entirely  to  the  form  and  tenor  thereof.  We  understand  that  Her 
Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Denmark  will  likewise  declare,  by  a  formal  instrument,  that  they  have 
received  and  accepted  this  our  declaration  and  will  recognize  us  as  a 
principal  contracting  Party  with  regard  to  the  said  convention ;  and 
as  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark,  having  been  invited  likewise, 
has  also  acceded  in  the  same  manner  and  in  the  same  sense  to  the 
exactly  similar  convention  concluded  between  us  and  Her  Majesty 
the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  and  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  on  July 
21/  August  1  of  the  present  year,  we  solemnly  declare  that  we  accept 
his  accession  and  that  we  recognize  His  Danish  Majesty  as  a  prin- 
cipal contracting  Party  of  that  convention  and  of  six  separate  articles 
thereto  annexed.  In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  this  present  act 
of  accession  with  our  own  hand  and  have  afiixed  thereto  our  royal  seal. 

Done  and  given  at  Spa,  September  9.  1780. 

GUSTAVUS 

U.  G.  Franc 


Resolution  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  the  United  States  ac- 
ceding to  the  Principles  contained  in  the  Declaration  of  the 
Empress  of  Russia,  October  5,  1780- 

Congress  took  into  consideration  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
motion  relating  to  the  propositions  of  the  Empress  of  Russia;  and 
thereupon  came  to  the  following  resolutions : 


^Ante,  p.  311. 

^Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  vol.  18,  p.  905;  Wharton,  Diplomatic 
Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution,  vol.  4,  p.  80. 


324  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  attentive  to  the  freedom 
of  commerce,  and  the  rights  of  nations,  in  her  declaration  to  the  bel- 
ligerent and  neutral  Powers,  having  proposed  regulations,  founded 
upon  principles  of  justice,  equity,  and  moderation,  of  which  Their 
Most  Christian  and  Catholic  Majesties  and  most  of  the  neutral  mari- 
time Powers  of  Europe,  have  declared  their  approbation; 

Congress,  willing  to  testify  their  regard  to  the  rights  of  commerce, 
and  their  respect  for  the  sovereign,  who  hath  proposed  and  the  Powers 
that  have  approved  the  said  regulations: 

Resolved,  That  the  Board  of  Admiralty  prepare  and  report  instruc- 
tions for  the  commanders  of  armed  vessels  commissioned  by  the 
United  States,  conformable  to  the  principles  contained  in  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  on  the  rights  of  neutral  vessels : 

That  the  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  from  the  United  States,  if  in- 
vited thereto,  be  and  hereby  are  respectively  empowered  to  accede  to 
such  regulations,  conformable  to  the  spirit  of  the  said  declaration,  as 
may  be  agreed  upon  by  the  Congress  expected  to  assemble  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  invitation  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty. 

Ordered,  That  copies  of  the  above  resolutions  be  transmitted  to  the 
respective  Ministers  of  the  United  States,  at  foreign  Courts,  and  to 
the  honorable  the  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  France. 


Russian  Memorandum  to  the  Belligerent  Powers  notifying  them  of 
the  Accession  of  Denmark  and  Norway  and  Sweden  to  the 
System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  November  7,  1780^ 

The  undersigned,  Envoy,  etc.,  has  received  instructions  from  his 
Court  to  communicate  to  the  Court  of  ...  a  convention  drawn 
up  and  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  on  June  28/July  9  between  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  his  sovereign,  and  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  July  21/August  1  between  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  which  has  for 
its  sole  and  only  object  the  maintenance  of  the  rights  and  liberties 
belonging  to  every  neutral  nation.     Anxious  to  perform  his  duty,  he 

iTranslation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  657. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  325 

requests  the  Minister  of  His  Majesty  .  .  .  kindly  to  bring  it  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  King.  His  Majesty  will  find  in  all  the  clauses 
and  articles  of  this  treaty  an  expression  of  the  principles  of  perfect 
impartiality  and  neutrality,  as  well  as  of  the  sentiments  of  justice  and 
equity  which  constantly  guide  the  Empress,  his  sovereign,  and  which 
have  decided  her  to  adopt  measures  calculated  to  protect  her  subjects 
from  the  losses,  vexations,  and  dangers,  to  which  they,  their  com- 
merce and  their  navigation  might  be  exposed  as  the  unfortunate  result 
of  the  naval  war  which  is  disturbing  the  tranquillity  of  Europe. 

The  Empress  is  pleased  to  believe  from  the  friendship  and  the  spirit 
of  justice  with  which  His  Majesty  ...  is  animated  that  he 
will  recognize  the  equity  and  peaceful  intent  of  this  convention,  and 
that  he  will  ensure  the  execution  of  the  orders  which  he  has  had  sent 
to  all  his  officers  and  commanders  of  his  war-ships,  as  well  as  to  nis 
ship-owners,  to  respect  the  rights  and  liberties  of  neutral  nations,  just 
as  Her  Imperial  Majesty  has  provided  measures  to  prevent  her  sub- 
jects from  engaging  in  illicit  commerce  to  the  detriment  of  either  of 
the  Powers  at  war. 


Resolution  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  regarding 
Their  Accession  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  November 
20,  1780^ 

Consideration  having  been  given  to  a  communication  from  Messrs. 
van  Wassenaar  and  van  Heeckeren,  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the 
States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to  the  Court  of  Russia,  written  at 
St.  Petersburg  on  September  15,  last,  and  received  here  on  October 
2,  following,  giving  an  account  of  their  conference  with  Count  Panin 
and  Vice  Chancellor  Count  van  Ostermann  upon  the  subject  of  their 
commission,  and  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  a  convention  and  some 
separate  articles,  together  with  a  draft  of  the  accession  in  the  form 
in  which  the  States-General  shall  sign  it,  all  of  which  is  referred  to 
at  length  in  the  above-mentioned  communication  and  in  the  report  of 
October  2  last : 


^Translation.     Dutch  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  211. 


326  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

It  stands  approved  and  agreed  that  the  States-General's  Ministers 
Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg  shall  be  directed  and 
authorized,  and  by  this  resolution  they  are  authorized,  in  the  name  of 
the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to  accede  to  the  twofold  con- 
vention of  that  Court  with  Their  Majesties  the  Kings  of  Denmark  and 
of  Sweden,  concluded  on  July  9  and  July  21  at  Copenhagen  and 
St.  Petersburg  respectively,^  and  to  accept,  on  the  part  of  the  States- 
General  of  the  Netherlands,  the  separate  articles  thereof  and  the 
obligations  therein  stated,  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  advantage  thereby 
contracted,  as  if  the  conventions  had  been  entered  into  and  concluded, 
word  for  word,  between  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  and 
each  of  the  contracting  Powers  as  principal  contracting  Parties,  with 
reasons  established  this  day  in  the  declarations  of  the  States-General 
addressed  to  the  belligerent  Powers ;  and  within  six  weeks  of  the  date 
of  this  resolution  of  the  States-General,  to  conform  fully  to  and 
solemnly  to  accept  that  which  Her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and 
the  Kings  of  Sweden  and  Denmark  have  stipulated  in  their  declara- 
tions to  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  with  regard  to  contraband  mer- 
chandise, to  conform  to  that  which  has  been  stipulated  in  the  treaties 
concluded  between  the  States-General  and  the  belligerent  Powers, 
and  more  especially  in  Article  6  of  their  maritime  treaty  with  Spain 
of  December  17,  1650,-  in  Article  3  of  their  maritime  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  of  December  1,  1674,"  and  Article  16  of  the  commercial, 
naval  and  maritime  treaty  with  France,  of  December  21.  1739,^  con- 
cluded for  the  period  of  twenty-five  years.  The  States-General  con- 
sider the  disposition  and  the  determination  of  contraband  merchan- 
dise given  thereby  as  perfec'Jy  founded  upon  the  law  of  nations,  and 
accept  them  unreservedly;  and  they  confer  the  further  authorization 
upon  the  above-mentioned  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  to  draft  for  Her 
Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties,  acts  regarding 
the  above-mentioned  accession  and  acceptation,  embodying  in  the  most 
friendly  tone  the  fullest  obligations,  and  to  transmit  the  said  acts  to 
the  above-mentioned  Courts,  with  the  request  that  the  necessary  acts 
of  acceptation  of  the  above-mentioned  accession  on  the  part  of  the 
States-General  be  delivered  to  them  in  turn. 


^Antc,  pp.  299,  311. 
-Dumont,  vol.  6,  pt.  1,  p.  570. 
^Ibid.,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  282. 
*Wenck,  vol.  1,  p.  414. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  327 

In  consequence  of  the  above-mentioned  resolution  regarding  acces- 
sion to  the  above-mentioned  convention  it  is  further  resolved  that 
within  the  above-mentioned  period  of  six  weeks  from  the  date  of  this 
resolution  of  the  States-General,  declarations  as  adopted  by  the 
above-mentioned  Courts,  conformable  to  the  style  of  those  of  Her 
Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  of  Their  Royal  Majesties  of  Sweden 
and  of  Denmark  regarding  the  protection  which  the  States-General 
intend  to  extend  to  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  citizens, 
shall  be  sent  to  the  Courts  of  Great  Britain,  France  and  Spain.  These 
declarations  shall  define  the  character  of  contraband  merchandise  and 
repeat  the  principles  construed  in  the  declaration  of  Her  Imperial 
Russian  Majesty  and  accepted  by  the  States-General.  The  necessary 
orders  shall  be  sent  to  Mr.  L-estevenon  van  PJerkenrode,  the  States- 
General's  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  France,  and  to  Counts  van 
Welderen  and  van  Rechteren,  Envoys  Extraordinary  and  Plenipoten- 
tiary at  the  Courts  of  Great  Britain  and  of  Spain  respectively,  in- 
forming them  at  once  of  the  time  when  the  above-mentioned  declara- 
tion shall  he  communicated  to  each  of  the  belligerent  Powers.  A 
copy  of  the  declaration  itself  shall  be  sent  to  the  above-mentioned 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary,  to  acquaint  Her  Imperial  Russian  Maj- 
esty's Ministry  thereof ;  a  copy  of  the  declaration  shall  be  left  with 
the  said  Ministry,  and  other  copies  sent  to  Messrs.  van  Lynden  and 
Bosc  de  la  Calmette,  the  States-General's  Envoys  Extraordinary  at 
the  Courts  of  Svveden  and  Denmark;  other  copies  still  shall  be  sent 
to  Mr.  Smissart,  the  States-General's  Minister  at  the  Court  of  Por- 
tugal, and  to  Mr.  van  Heiden.  the  States-General's  Ejivoy  Extraordi- 
nary and  Plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  Prussia,  the  former  being 
rendered  necessar\'  to  perfect  accession  to  the  above-mentioned  con- 
vention, and  the  latter  having  informed  the  Ministry  of  Russia  of 
acceding  to  the  convention  in  that  manner,  so  that  both  may  make 
communication  to  that  effect  to  the  Courts  whereto  they  are  accred- 
ited ;  and,  lastly,  copies  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  with  Spain  in  1650 
and  with  France  in  1739  shall,  as  expressly  requested  by  them,  be  sent 
to  the  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  at  Petersburg. 

The  honorable  deputies  of  the  Provinces  of  Gelderland,  Utrecht, 
Friesland,  Overyssel,  of  the  town  of  Groningen  and  rural  Ommen 
have  accepted  the  resolutions  of  the  States-General,  their  superiors, 
introduced  from  time  to  time  upon  this  subject,  and  those  of  Holland 
and  West  Friesland,  that  of  the  States-General,  their  superiors,  with 
regard  to  the  time  of  notifying  tlie  declaration  to  tiie  belligerent  Powers. 


328  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

The  honorable  dcpnt}-  of  the  Province  of  Zealand  who  was  present 
declared  that  as  the  members  had  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the 
resolution  of  the  States-General,  his  superior,  of  the  third  of  this 
month,  here  introduced,  was  against  the  sentiment  of  the  majority  of 
the  other  provinces,  he  had  hoped  that  the  said  members  would  be 
willing  to  postpone  adopting  a  conclusion,  believing  that,  according  to 
the  union,  no  conclusion  could  be  reached  by  a  majority  for  the  mak-* 
ing  of  conventions,  alliances  or  treaties.  But  the  other  provinces 
having  proceeded  to  a  conclusion,  he  had  accepted,  under  protest,  the 
consequences  which  might  result,  leaving  them  to  the  responsibility 
of  the  other  provinces. 


British  Additional  Instructions  to  the  Commanders  of  War-ships 
and  Privateers,  November  20,  1780^ 

An  additional  instruction  to  the  commanders  of  all  His  Majesty's 
ships  of  war  and  privateers,  that  have,  or  may  have,  letters  of  marque 
against  the  French  King,  or  the  King  of  Spain,  their  vassals  or  sub- 
jects, or  others  inhabiting  within  any  of  their  countries,  territories, 
or  dominions,  or  against  any  other  enemies,  or  rebellious  subjects  of 
the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  Given  at  our  Court  at  St.  James's  the 
twentieth  day  of  November,  1780,  in  the  twenty-first  year  of  our 
reign.  [L.  S.] 

Whereas,  notwithstanding  our  former  instructions  to  the  several 
commanders  aforesaid,  some  inconvenience  has  arisen  from  an  igno- 
rance of  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  engagements  with  our  good 
sister  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias :  we  being  determined  to  adhere 
strictly  to  the  faith  of  those  engagements,  and  solicitous  to  prevent, 
as  much  as  possible,  all  illicit  proceedings,  do  hereby  enjoin  to  all  the 
several  commanders  aforesaid,  the  strictest  observance  of  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  con- 
cluded between  us  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  on  the  20th  of  June, 
1766,  which  articles  are  here  inserted,  that  they  may  be  accurately 
known  to  all  the  aforesaid  commanders,  and  observed  by  them  as  an 
inviolable  law. 


^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  63. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  329 

Article  10 

The  subjects  of  the  two  high  contracting  Parties  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  go,  come,  and  trade  freely  with  the  States,  with  which  one  or  other 
of  the  parties  shall  at  this  or  at  any  future  period  be  engaged  in  war, 
provided  they  do  not  carry  warlike  stores  to  the  enemy. 

This  liberty,  however,  not  to  extend  to  places  actually  blocked  up, 
or  besieged,  either  by  sea  or  land.  At  all  other  times,  and  with  the 
single  exception  of  warlike  stores,  the  aforesaid  subjects  may  trans- 
port to  these  places  all  sorts  of  merchandise,  as  well  as  passengers, 
without  the  least  impediment.  In  the  searching  of  merchant  ships, 
men  of  war  and  privateers  shall  behave  as  favorably,  as  a  state  of 
actual  war  can  possibly  permit  towards  the  most  friendly  neutral 
Powers,  observing,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  principles  and  maxims  of 
the  law  of  nations,  that  are  generally  acknowledged. 

Article  11 

All  cannon,  mortars,  firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets, 
balls,  fuses,  flint,  stones,  matches,  powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur,  breast- 
plates, pikes,  swords,  belts,  cartouch-bags,  saddles  and  bridles,  beyond 
the  quantity  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  ship,  or  beyond 
what  every  man  serving  on  board  the  ship,  and  every  passenger  ought 
to  have,  shall  be  accounted  ammunition  or  warlike  stores,  and  if  found 
shall  be  confiscated  according  to  law,  as  contraband  goods,  or  prohib- 
ited effects,  but  neither  the  ships  nor  passengers,  nor  the  other  merchan- 
dises found  at  the  same  time,  shall  be  detained  or  hindered  from  prose- 
cuting their  voyage. 

By  His  Majesty's  command, 

Stormont 


Reply  of  the  Court  of  France,  December  12,  1780,  to  the  Russian 
Memorandum  concerning  the  Accession  of  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way and  Sweden  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality^ 

The  King  feels  highly  flattered  by  the  confidence  with  which  the 
Empress    of    all    the    Russias    communicates    to   him   the    convention 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  209. 


330  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

signed  at  Copenhagen  on  July  9^  last  between  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and 
the  King  of  Denmark,  and  at  St.  Petersburg  on  July  21/August  1-  last 
between  Her  said  Imperial  Majesty  and  the  King  of  Sweden. 

His  Majesty  has  recognized  with  pleasure  that  this  convention  con- 
tains the  most  appropriate  measure  to  ensure  the  freedom  of  the  seas 
and  the  immunity  of  the  flag  of  neutral  Powers.  The  declarations  of 
His  Majesty  in  this  respect,  both  to  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all 
the  Russias  and  to  Their  Danish  and  Swedish  Majesties;  the  order 
that  he  has  given  to  the  officers  of  his  fleet  and  to  all  his  privateers ; 
and  the  care  that  he  is  taking  to  ensure  their  execution  must  con- 
vince Her  Imperial  Majesty  that  the  object  of  the  said  convention 
will  be  entirely  fulfilled  by  all  captains  flying  the  French  flag.  His 
Majesty  has  had  many  opportunities  during  the  past  three  years  to 
make  known  to  his  subjects  and  to  Europe  that  the  happiness  and 
prosperity  of  neutral  nations,  and  of  the  Russian  nation  in  particular, 
have  entered  in  no  small  measure  in  the  calculations  of  his  policy  and 
in  his  military  projects.  He  hopes  that  his  eflforts  and  his  example 
will  help  to  strengthen  the  system  which  has  brought  into  being  and 
is  extending  from  day  to  day  the  association  of  neutral  Powers.  His 
hop>es  will  be  fulfilled  if  there  results  from  this  system  a  diminution 
of  the  evils  of  war  and  the  assurance  that  princes  and  peoples  who 
observe  a  strict  neutrality  shall  never  suffer  injury  from  war. 

Versailles,  December  12,  I/80. 

De  Vergennes 


Manifesto  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  regarding  Relations  with  the 
Netherlands,  December  20,  1780^ 

Through  the  whole  course  of  our  reign,  our  conduct  towards  the 
States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  has  been  that  of  a  sincere 
friend  and  faithful  ally.  Had  they  adhered  to  those  wise  principles, 
which  used  to  govern  the  Republik,  they  must  have  shewn  themselves 


^Ante,  p.  299. 
■^Ante,  p.  311. 

^Hennings,  vol.  1,  p.  67.     For  the  counter-manifesto  of  the  States-General  of 
the  Netherlands,  see  post,  p.  380. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  331 

equally  soUicitous  to  maintain  the  friendship,  which  has  so  long  sub- 
sisted between  the  two  nations,  and  which  is  essential  to  the  interests 
of  both.  But  from  the  prevalence  of  a  faction  devoted  to  France,  and 
following  the  dictates  of  that  Court,  a  very  different  policy  has  pre- 
vailed. The  return  made  to  our  friendship,  for  some  time  past,  has 
been  an  open  contempt  of  the  most  solemn  engagements,  and  a  re- 
peated violation  of  public  faith. 

On  the  commencement  of  the  defensive  war,  in  which  we  found 
ourselves  engaged  by  the  aggression  of  France,  we  shewed  a  tender 
regard  for  the  interests  of  the  States-General,  and  a  desire  of  securing 
to  their  subjects  every  advantage  of  trade,  consistent  with  the  great 
and  just  principle  of  our  own  defence.  Our  Ambassador  was  in- 
structed to  oft'er  a  friendly  negotiation,  to  obviate  everything  that 
might  lead  to  disagreeable  discussion ;  and  to  this  offer,  solemnly  made 
by  him  to  the  States-General,  the  2d  of  November  1778,  no  attention 
was  paid. 

After  the  number  of  our  enemies  increased  by  the  aggression  of 
Spain,  equally  unprovoked  with  that  of  France,  we  found  it  necessary 
to  call  upon  the  States-General  for  the  performance  of  their  engage- 
ments. The  fifth  article  of  the  perpetual  defensive  alliance  between 
Our  Crown  and  the  States-General,  concluded  at  Westminster  the  3d 
of  March,  1678,  besides  the  general  engagement  for  succours,  ex- 
pressly stipulates,  "That  that  party  of  the  two  allies,  that  is  not  at- 
tacked, shall  be  obliged  to  break  with  the  aggressor  in  two  months 
after  the  party  attacked  shall  require  it:" — Yet  two  years  have  passed, 
without  the  least  assistance  given  to  us.  without  a  single  syllable  in 
answer  to  our  repeated  demands. 

So  totally  regardless  have  the  States  been  of  their  treaties  with  us, 
that  they  readily  promised  our  enemies  to  observe  a  neutrality,  in 
direct  contradiction  to  those  engagements ;  and  whilst  they  have  with- 
held from  us  the  succours  they  were  bound  to  furnish,  every  secret 
assistance  has  been  given  the  enemy ;  and  inland  duties  have  been  taken 
off,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  facilitating  the  carriage  of  naval  stores  to 
France. 

In  direct  and  open  violation  of  treaty,  they  suffered  an  American 
pirate  to  remain  several  weeks  in  one  of  their  ports ;  and  even  per- 
mitted a  part  of  his  crew  to  mount  guard  in  a  fort  in  the  Texel. 

In  the  East  Indies,  the  subjects  of  the  States-General,  in  concert 
with  France,  have  endeavoured  to  raise  up  enemies  against  us. 


332  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

In  the  West  Indies,  particularly  at  St.  Eustatius,  every  protection 
and  assistance  has  been  given  to  our  rebellious  subjects.  Their  pri- 
vateers are  openly  received  in  the  Dutch  harbours;  allowed  to  refit 
there;  supplied  with  arms  and  ammunition;  their  crews  recruited; 
their  prizes  brought  in  and  sold;  and  all  this  in  direct  violation  of  as 
clear  and  solemn  stipulations,  as  can  be  made. 

This  conduct,  so  inconsistent  with  all  good  faith,  so  repugnant  to 
the  sense  of  the  wisest  part  of  the  Dutch  nation,  is  chiefly  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  prevalence  of  the  leading  magistrates  of  Amsterdam, 
whose  secret  correspondence  with  our  rebellious  subjects  was  sus- 
pected, long  before  it  was  made  known  by  the  fortunate  discovery  of 
a  treaty,  the  first  article  of  which  is : — 

There  shall  be  a  firm  inviolable  and  universal  peace  and  sincere 
friendship  between  Their  High  Mightinesses,  the  estates  of  the 
seven  United  Provinces  of  Holland,  and  the  United  States  of 
North  America,  and  the  subjects  and  people  of  the  said  parties; 
and  between  the  countries,  islands,  cities,  and  towns,  situated 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  said  United  States  [Provinces]  of 
Holland,  and  the  said  United  States  of  America,  and  the  people 
and  inhabitants  thereof,  of  every  degree  without  exception  of 
persons  or  places. 

This  treaty  was  signed  in  September,  1778,  by  the  express  order 
of  the  Pensionary  of  Amsterdam,  and  other  principal  magistrates  of 
that  city.  They  now  not  only  avow  the  whole  transaction,  but  glory 
in  it,  and  expressly  say.  even  to  the  States-General,  "that  what  they 
did,  was  what  their  indispensable  duty  required." 

In  the  meantime,  the  States-General  declined  to  give  any  answer  to 
the  memorial  presented  by  our  Ambassador;  and  this  refusal  was  ag- 
gravated by  their  proceeding  upon  other  business,  nay  upon  the  con- 
sideration of  this  very  subject  to  internal  purposes ;  and  while  they 
found  it  impossible  to  approve  the  conduct  of  their  subjects,  they  still 
industriously  avoided  to  give  us  the  satisfaction  so  manifestly  due. 

We  have  every  right  to  expect,  that  such  a  discovery  would  have 
roused  them  to  a  just  indignation  at  the  insult  offered  to  us,  and  to 
themselves ;  and  that  they  would  have  been  eager  to  give  us  full  and 
ample  satisfaction  for  the  offence,  and  to  inflict  the  severest  punish- 
ment upon  the  offenders.  The  urgency  of  the  business  made  an  in- 
stant answer  essential  to  the  honour  and  safety  of  this  country.  The 
demand  was  accordingly  pressed  by  our  Ambassador  in  repeated  con- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  333 

f erences  with  the  Ministers,  and  in  a  second  memorial :  It  was  pressed 
with  all  the  earnestness  which  could  proceed  from  our  ancient  friend- 
ship, and  the  sense  of  recent  injuries ;  and  the  answer  now  given  to  a 
memorial  on  such  a  subject,  delivered  above  five  weeks  ago,  is,  "That 
the  States  have  taken  it  ad  referendum."  Such  an  answer,  upon  such 
an  occasion,  could  only  be  dictated  by  the  fixed  purpose  of  hostility, 
meditated  and  already  resolved  by  the  States,  induced  by  the  offensive 
Councils  of  Amsterdam,  thus  to  countenance  the  hostile  aggression, 
which  the  magistrates  of  that  city  have  made  in  the  name  of  the  Re- 
publik. 

There  is  an  end  of  the  faith  of  all  treaties  with  them,  if  Amsterdam 
may  usurp  the  sovereign  power,  may  violate  those  treaties  with  im- 
punity, by  pledging  the  States  to  engagements  directly  contrary,  and 
leaguing  the  Republik  with  the  rebels  of  a  sovereign,  to  whom  she  is 
bound  by  the  closest  ties.  An  infraction  of  the  law  of  nations,  by  the 
meanest  member  of  any  country,  gives  the  injured  State  a  right  to 
demand  satisfaction  and  punishment :  How  much  more  so,  when  the 
injury  complained  of  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  public  faith,  committed 
by  leading  and  predominant  members  in  the  States?  Since  then  the 
satisfaction  we  have  demanded  is  not  given ;  we  must,  though  most 
reluctantly,  do  ourselves  that  justice  which  we  cannot  otherwise  ob- 
tain :  we  must  consider  the  States-General  as  parties  in  the  injury, 
which  they  will  not  repair,  as  sharers  in  the  aggression  which  they  re- 
fuse to  punish,  and  must  act  accordingly.  We  have  therefore  ordered 
our  Ambassador  to  withdraw  from  The  Hague,  and  shall  immediately 
pursue  such  vigorous  measures  as  the  occasion  fully  justifies,  and  our 
dignity  and  the  essential  interests  of  our  people  require. 

From  a  regard  to  the  Dutch  nation  at  large,  we  wish  it  were  pos- 
sible to  direct  those  measures  wholly  against  Amsterdam ;  but  this 
cannot  be,  unless  the  States-General  will  immediately  declare,  that 
Amsterdam  shall,  upon  this  occasion,  receive  no  assistance  from  them, 
but  be  left  to  abide  the  consequences  of  its  aggression. 

Whilst  Amsterdam  is  suffered  to  prevail  in  the  general  councils, 
and  is  backed  by  the  strength  of  the  State,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the 
aggression  of  so  considerable  a  part,  without  contending  with  the 
whole.  But  we  are  too  sensible  of  the  common  interests  of  both  coun- 
tries not  to  remember,  in  the  midst  of  such  a  contest,  that  the  only 
point  to  be  aimed  at  by  us,  is  to  raise  a  disposition  in  the  councils  of 
the  Republik  to  return  to  our  ancient  union,  by  giving  us  that  satis- 


334  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

faction  for  the  past,  and  security  for  the  future,  which  we  shall  be 
as  ready  to  receive  as  they  can  be  to  offer,  and  to  the  attainment  of 
which  we  shall  direct  all  our  operations.  We  mean  only  to  provide 
for  our  own  security,  by  defeating  the  dangerous  designs  that  have 
been  formed  against  us.  We  shall  ever  be  disposed  to  return  to 
friendship  with  the  States-General,  when  they  sincerely  revert  to  that 
system,  which  the  wisdom  of  their  ancestors  formed,  and  which  has 
now  been  subverted  by  a  powerful  faction,  conspiring  with  France 
against  the  true  interests  of  the  Republik,  no  less  than  against  those  of 
Great  Britain. 


British   Order   of   Council   granting   Reprisals   against   the   Ships, 
Goods  and  Subjects  of  the  Netherlands,  December  20,  1780^ 

Present:  The  King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 

His  Majesty,  having  taken  into  consideration  the  many  injurious 
proceedings  of  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces,  and  their 
subjects,  as  set  forth  in  his  royal  manifesto  of  this  date,  and  being  de- 
termined to  take  such  measures,  as  are  necessary  for  vindicating  the 
honour  of  his  Crown,  and  for  procuring  reparation  and  satisfaction, 
is  pleased,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his  Privy  Council,  to  order,  and 
it  is  hereby  ordered,  That  general  reprisals  be  granted  against  the 
ships,  goods,  and  subjects  of  the  States-General  of  the  United  Prov- 
inces, so  that  as  well  His  Majesty's  fleet  and  ships,  as  also  all  other 
ships  and  vessels,  that  shall  be  commissionated  by  letters  of  marque 
or  general  reprisals,  or  otherwise,  by  His  ^Majesty's  commissioners 
for  executing  the  office  of  Lord  High  Admiral  of  Great  Britain,  shall 
and  may  lawfully  seize  all  ships,  vessels,  and  goods  belonging  to  the 
States-General  of  the  United  Provinces,  or  their  subjects,  or  others 
inhabiting  within  any  of  the  territories  of  the  aforesaid  States-Gen- 
eral, and  bring  the  same  to  judgment  in  any  of  the  courts  of  admiralty 
within  His  Majesty's  dominions:  and  to  that  end  His  Majesty's  Ad- 
vocate General,  with  the  Advocate  of  the  Admiralty,  are  forthwith  to 
prepare  the  draught  of  a  commission,  and  present  the  same  to  His 


^Hennings,  vol.  1,  p.  71. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  335 

Majesty  at  this  Board,  authorizing  the  said  commissioners  for  executing 
the  office  of  Lord  High  Admiral  to  will  and  require  the  High  Court 
of  Admiralty  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  lieutenant  and  judge  of  the 
said  court,  his  surrogate  or  surrogates,  as  also  the  several  courts  of 
admiralty  within  His  Majesty's  dominions,  to  take  cognizance  of,  and 
judicially  proceed  upon  all  and  all  manner  of  captures,  seizures,  prizes 
and  reprisals  of  all  ships  and  goods,  that  are  or  shall  be  taken,  and 
to  hear  and  determine  the  same ;  and.  according  to  the  course  of  ad- 
miralty and  the  laws  of  nations,  to  adjudge  and  condemn  all  such  ships, 
vessels  and  goods,  as  shall  belong  to  the  States-General  of  the  United 
Provinces  or  their  vassals  and  subjects,  or  to  any  others  inhabiting 
within  any  of  the  countries,  territories  and  dominions  of  the  aforesaid 
States-General ;  and  that  such  powers  and  clauses  be  inserted  in  the 
said  commission  as  have  been  usual,  and  are  according  to  former  pre- 
cedents :  and  they  are  likewise  to  prepare,  and  lay  before  His  Majesty 
at  this  Board,  a  draught  of  such  instructions  as  may  be  proper  to  be 
sent  to  the  courts  of  admiralty  in  His  Majesty's  foreign  governments 
and  plantations,  for  their  guidance  herein ;  as  also  another  draught  of 
instructions  for  such  ships  as  shall  be  commissionated  for  the  purposes 
afore-mentioned. 


British  Instructions  to  Commanders  of  Merchant  Ships  and  Vessels 
having  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisals,  December  21,  1780' 

Instructions  for  the  commanders  of  such  merchant  ships  or  vessels, 
who  shall  have  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals  for  private  men  of  war 
against  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces,  or  their  subjects, 
or  others  inhabiting  within  any  of  the  territories  of  the  aforesaid 
States-General,  by  virtue  of  our  commission  granted  under  our  great 
seal  of  Great  Britain,  bearing  date  the  twentieth  day  of  this  instant 
December.  Given  at  our  Court  at  St.  James's  the  twenty-first  day  of 
December,  1780,  in  the  twenty-first  year  of  our  reign. 


^Ibid.,  vol.  2,  p.  65. 


336  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  1 

That  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  commanders  of  ships  authorized  by 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  for  private  men  of  war,  to  set  upon  by 
force  of  arms,  and  subdue  and  take  the  men  of  war,  ships  and  vessels, 
woods,  wares  and  merchandises  of  the  States-General  of  the  United 
Provinces,  and  their  subjects,  and  others  inhabiting  within  any  of  the 
territories  of  the  aforesaid  States-General ;  but  so  as  that  no  hostility 
be  committed,  nor  prize  attacked,  seized,  or  taken,  within  the  harbours 
of  princes  and  States  in  amity  with  us,  or  in  their  rivers  or  roads, 
within  the  shot  of  their  cannon,  unless  by  permission  of  such  princes 
or  States,  or  of  their  commanders  or  governors  in  chief  in  such  places. 

Article  2 

That  the  commanders  of  ships  and  vessels  so  authorized  as  afore- 
said, shall  bring  all  ships,  vessels,  and  goods,  which  they  shall  seize 
and  take,  into  such  port  of  this  our  realm  of  England,  or  some  other 
port  of  our  dominions  not  in  rebellion,  as  shall  be  most  convenient 
for  them,  in  order  to  have  the  same  legally  adjudged  in  our  High  Court 
of  Admiralty  of  England,  or  before  the  judges  of  any  other  admiralty 
court  lawfully  authorized  within  our  dominions. 

Article  3 

That  after  such  ships,  vessels,  and  goods,  shall  be  taken  and  brought 
into  any  port,  the  taker,  or  one  of  his  chief  officers,  or  some  other 
person  present  at  the  capture,  shall  be  obliged  to  bring  or  send,  as 
soon  as  possibly  may  be,  three  or  four  of  the  principal  of  the  company 
(whereof  the  master,  mate,  or  boatswain,  to  be  always  two)  of  every 
ship  or  vessel  so  brought  into  port,  before  the  judge  of  our  High 
Court  of  Admiralty  of  England,  or  his  surrogate,  or  before  the  judge 
of  such  other  admiralty  court  within  our  dominions,  lawfully  author- 
ized as  aforesaid,  or  such  as  shall  be  lawfully  commissioned  in  that 
behalf,  to  be  sworn  and  examined  upon  such  interrogatories  as  shall 
tend  to  the  discovery  of  the  truth  concerning  the  interest  or  property 
of  such  ship  or  ships,  vessel  or  vessels,  and  of  the  goods,  merchandises, 
or  other  efifects  found  therein ;  and  the  taker  shall  be  larther  obliged, 
at  the  time  he  produceth  the  company  to  be  examined,  and  before  any 
monition  shall  be  issued,  to  bring  and  deliver  into  the  hands  of  the 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  337 

judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of  England,  his  surrogate,  or 
the  judge  of  such  other  admiralty  court  within  our  dominions  law- 
fully authorized,  or  others  commissioned  as  aforesaid,  all  such  papers, 
passes,  sea-briefs,  charter-parties,  bills  of  lading,  cockets,  letters,  and 
other  documents  and  writings  as  shall  be  delivered  up,  or  found  on 
board  any  ship.  The  taker,  or  one  of  his  chief  officers,  or  some  other 
person  who  was  present  at  the  capture,  and  saw  the  said  papers  and 
writings  delivered  up,  or  otherwise  found  on  board  at  the  time  of  the 
capture,  making  oath  that  the  said  papers  and  writings  are  brought 
and  delivered  in  as  they  were  received  and  taken,  without  any  fraud, 
addition,  subduction  or  embezzlement,  or  otherwise  to  account  for  the 
same  upon  oath,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court. 

Article  4 

That  the  ships,  vessels,  goods,  wares,  merchandises,  and  effects, 
taken  by  virtue  of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals  as  aforesaid,  shall 
be  kept  and  preserved,  and  no  part  of  them  shall  be  sold,  spoiled, 
wasted,  or  diminished;  and  that  the  bulk  thereof  shall  not  be  broken 
before  judgment  be  given  in  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of  Eng- 
land, or  some  other  court  of  admiralty  lawfully  authorized  in  that  be- 
half, that  the  ships,  goods,  and  merchandises  are  lawful  prize. 

Article  5 

That  if  any  ship  or  vessel  belonging  to  us,  or  our  subjects,  shall  be 
found  in  distress  by  being  in  fight,  set  upon,  or  taken  by  the  enemy, 
or  by  reason  of  any  other  accident,  the  commanders,  officers,  and 
company  of  such  merchant  ships  or  vessels  as  shall  have  letters  of 
marque  and  reprisals  as  aforesaid,  shall  use  their  best  endeavours,  and 
give  aid  and  succour  to  all  such  ship  and  ships,  and  shall,  to  the  utmost 
of  their  power,  labour  to  free  the  same  from  the  enemy,  or  any  other 
distress. 

Article  6 

That  the  commanders  or  owners  of  such  ships  and  vessels,  before 
the  taking  out  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals,  shall  make  application 
in  writing,  subscribed  with  their  hands,  to  our  High  Admiral  of  Great 
Britain,  or  our  commissioners  for  executing  that  office  for  the  time 
being,  or  the  lieutenant  or  judge  of  the  said  High  Court  of  Admiralty, 


338  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

or  his  surrogate,  and  shall  therein  set  forth  a  particular,  true,  and 
exact  description  of  the  ship  or  vessel  for  which  such  letter  of  marque 
and  reprisal  is  requested,  specifying  the  burthen  of  such  ship  or  ves- 
sel, and  the  number  and  nature  of  the  guns,  and  what  other  warlike 
furniture  and  ammunition  are  on  board  the  same,  to  what  place  the 
ship  belongs,  and  the  name  or  names  of  the  principal  owner  or  owners 
of  such  ship  and  vessel,  and  the  number  of  men  intended  to  be  put 
on  board  the  same,  and  for  what  time  they  are  victualed,  also  the 
names  of  the  commander  and  officers. 

Article  7 

That  the  commanders  of  ships  and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisals  as  aforesaid,  shall  hold  and  keep,  and  are  hereby  en- 
joined to  hold  and  keep  a  correspondence,  by  all  conveniences  and 
upon  all  occasions,  with  our  High  Admiral  of  Great  Britain,  or  our 
commissioners  for  executing  that  office  for  the  time  being,  or  their 
secretary ;  so  as  from  time  to  time  to  render  and  give  him  or  them  not 
only  an  account  or  intelligence  of  their  captures  and  proceedings  by 
virtue  of  such  commissions,  but  also  of  whatsoever  else  shall  occur 
unto  them,  or  be  discovered  and  declared  to  them,  or  found  out  by 
them,  or  by  examination  of,  or  conference  with,  any  mariners  or  pas- 
sengers of  or  in  the  ships  or  vessels  taken,  or  by  any  other  ways  and 
means  whatsoever,  touching  or  concerning  the  designs  of  the  enemy, 
or  any  of  their  fleets,  ships,  vessels  or  parties ;  and  of  the  stations, 
seaports,  and  places,  and  of  their  intents  therein ;  and  of  what  ships 
or  vessels  of  the  enemy  bound  out  or  home,  or  where  cruizing,  as  they 
shall  hear  of  ;  and  of  what  else  material  in  these  cases  may  arrive  at 
their  knowledge ;  to  the  end  such  course  may  be  thereupon  taken,  and 
such  orders  given  as  may  be  requisite. 

Article  8 

That  no  commander  of  any  ship  or  vessel  having  a  letter  of  marque 
and  reprisal  as  aforesaid,  shall  presume,  as  they  will  answer  it  at  their 
peril,  to  wear  any  jack,  pennant,  or  other  ensign,  or  colours  usually 
borne  by  our  ships ;  but  that,  besides  the  colours  usually  borne  by  mer- 
chant ships,  they  do  wear  a  red  jack,  with  the  union  jack  described 
in  the  canton  at  the  upper  corner  thereof,  near  the  staflF. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  339 

Article  9 

That  no  commander  of  any  ship  or  vessel  having  a  letter  of  marque 
and  reprisal  as  aforesaid,  shall  ransom  or  agree  to  ransom,  or  quit,  or 
set  at  liberty,  any  ship  or  vessel,  or  their  cargoes,  which  shall  be  seized 
and  taken. 

Article  10 

That  all  captains  or  commanding  officers  of  ships  having  letters  of 
marque  and  reprisals,  do  send  an  account  of,  and  deliver  over,  what 
prisoners  shall  be  taken  on  board  any  prizes,  to  the  commissioners 
appointed,  or  to  be  appointed,  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners  of  war, 
or  the  persons  appointed  in  the  seaport  towns  to  take  charge  of  pris- 
oners ;  and  that  such  prisoners  be  subject  only  to  the  orders,  regula- 
tions, and  directions  of  the  said  commissioners :  and  that  no  com- 
mander, or  other  officer  of  any  ship  having  a  letter  of  marque  and  re- 
prisal as  aforesaid,  do  presume,  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever,  to 
ransom  any  prisoners. 

Article  11 

Whereas  information  has  been  received,  that  several  of  the  seamen 
belonging  to  vessels  employed  in  our  service  have  been  induced  to 
desert  from  the  said  vessels,  and  to  enter  on  board  privateers,  by  the 
offer  of  large  bounties  and  other  advantages  held  out  to  them  by  the 
commanders  of  such  privateers ;  in  consequence  of  which,  the  said 
vessels  have  been  detained  in  port  to  the  great  detriment  and  distress 
of  our  service ;  for  the  avoiding  such  inconvenience  for  the  future, 
we  do  hereby  strictly  charge  and  enjoin  all  commanders  of  privateers 
and  merchant  ships,  having  letters  of  marque,  that  they  do  upon  no 
account  receive  and  detain  on  board  their  ships  any  seamen  belonging 
to  any  of  our  ships  of  war,  or  any  other  vessels  employed  in  our  ser- 
vice, either  as  transports,  store  ships,  or  victualers ;  and  that  if  they 
should  at  any  time  undesignedly  have  received  any  such  seamen,  they 
do  immediately  deliver  him  up,  upon  application  made  by  or  on  behalf 
of  the  captain  or  commander  of  such  ship  of  war,  or  other  ship  em- 
ployed in  our  service,  to  which  he  belonged  before  he  entered  on 
board  such  privateer  or  commissioned  ship,  under  pain  of  our  highest 
displeasure,  and  such  penalty  as  by  law  may  be  inflicted. 


340  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  12 

That  no  commander  of  any  man  of  war  or  privateer  do  upon  any 
pretence  take  any  French  or  Spanish  vessel  or  vessels  belonging  to 
the  United  Provinces,  or  to  any  other  enemies  or  rebellious  subjects 
of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  out  of  any  port  belonging  to  the  Otto- 
man Empire,  nor  molest,  detain,  or  imprison  the  persons  of  any  of 
the  subjects  of  the  Grand  Signor,  nor  seize  or  detain  as  prize  their 
ships  or  effects,  in  the  Levant  Seas,  or  any  other  part  of  the  ocean, 
under  pain  of  our  highest  displeasure,  and  such  punishment  as  by 
law  may  be  inflicted ;  and  that  the  commanders  of  men  of  war  and 
privateers  do  carry  the  subjects  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  and  their 
effects,  which  they  shall  find  on  board  French  or  Spanish  ships,  or 
ships  belonging  to  the  United  Provinces,  or  to  any  other  enemies  or 
rebellious  subjects  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  seized  in  the  Levant 
Seas,  bound  to  or  from  any  port  in  Egypt,  or  to  or  from  one  port  to 
another  in  the  Levant  Seas,  either  to  the  nearest  port  in  Turkey  or 
Egypt,  or  to  their  destined  port,  and  there  land  such  persons  and 
effects  as  shall  manifestly  appear  to  belong  to  the  Turks ;  and  that  no 
effects  or  merchandise  taken  on  board  any  French,  Spanish,  Dutch,  or 
other  enemies  or  rebellious  subjects  ship,  which  shall  be  claimed  by 
any  subjects  of  the  Grand  Signor,  as  being  their  property,  shall  be 
proceeded  against  for  condemnation  in  any  other  court  but  the  High 
Court  of  Admiralty  of  England ;  and  that  no  proceedings  shall  be 
had  in  the  said  High  Court  of  Admiralty  against  any  goods  or  effects 
which  shall  appear  to  be  the  property  of  any  subjects  of  the  Ottoman 
Empire,  until  notice  be  first  given  of  the  said  proceedings  to  the  Tur- 
key company,  to  the  end  that  care  may  be  taken  that  a  proper  and 
legal  defence  may  be  made  on  behalf  of  the  claimants  or  proprietors, 
subjects  of  the  Grand  Signor. 

Article  13 

Whereas  notwithstanding  our  former  instructions  to  the  several 
commanders  aforesaid,  that  nothing  be  in  any  wise  attempted  against 
the  ships,  vessels,  and  goods  of  any  prince  or  State  in  amity  with  us, 
or  of  their  subjects ;  yet  it  hath  so  happened  from  ignorance  of  the 
several  treaties  subsisting  between  us  and  foreign  Powers,  that  several 
commanders  of  private  ships  of  war  have  subjected  themselves  to 
very  great  costs  and  damages  in  our  High  Court  of  Admiralty  for 
such  irregular  proceedings :  we  being  desirous  to  adhere  strictly  to  the 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  341 

faith  of  treaties,  and  as  much  as  possible  to  prevent  all  illicit  proceed- 
ings, do  make  known  more  particularly,  that  the  several  treaties  of 
January  29,  1641-2,^  and  of  July  10,  1654,-  subsisting  between  the 
British  and  Portuguese  nations,  are  to  be  duly  observed  according  to 
former  precedents,  and  especially  the  23d  article  of  the  last-mentioned 
treaty,  whereby  all  goods  and  merchandise  of  the  enemies  of  either  of 
the  contracting  Parties,  put  on  board  the  ships  of  either  of  them,  or 
of  their  people  or  subjects,  shall  remain  untouched:  provided  always, 
that  nothing  shall  appear  by  any  persons  on  board  the  said  ships,  or 
by  any  letters,  papers,  or  other  documents  found  on  board  the  same, 
or  by  any  other  strong,  circumstantial,  and  probable  proofs,  that  the 
ship  belongs  in  the  whole,  or  in  part,  to  any  enemies  of  the  Crown 
of  Great  Britain,  or  is  going  to,  or  coming  from,  the  British  Colonies 
in  America,  or  is  carrying  the  goods  of  our  rebellious  subjects,  or  is 
otherwise  concerned  in  any  illegal  trade :  and  we  farther  will,  that  all 
due  respect  be  paid  to  the  passports,  of  her  Portuguese  Majesty,  and 
to  the  certificates  or  cockets  of  the  officers  of  her  customs,  whereby 
it  shall  appear  that  the  party  obtaining  the  same  did  make  oath  before 
the  proper  magistrate  or  officers,  that  the  appearer  was  truly  a  sub- 
ject resident  generally,  himself  and  family,  if  he  hath  one,  in  the 
dominions  of  her  Portuguese  Majesty,  and  that  no  other  person  than 
himself,  or  other  Portuguese  subjects,  have,  at  the  time  of  obtaining 
such  passport  or  certificate,  or  will  have  in  view  at  the  arrival  of  the 
ship  at  her  destined  port,  any  right,  interest,  or  property  in  the  said 
ship,  and  that  the  said  certificates  or  cockets  contain  a  fair,  full,  and 
true  particular  of  the  goods  on  board ;  and  that  such  passports  be 
granted  for  the  voyage  only  out  and  home,  and  for  ships  only  lying 
at  that  time  in  some  port  of  the  Portuguese  dominions,  when  or  where 
the  same  shall  be  granted. 

Article  14 

That  in  conformity  to  an  explanatory  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance 
and  commerce  between  England  and  Denmark,  concluded  at  Copen- 
hagen, July  11,  1670,  which  hath  been  lately  concluded  and  agreed 
upon  between  us  and  the  King  of  Denmark,  all  sorts  of  arms,  and 
things  thereto  belonging,  as  cannons,  muskets,  mortars,  petards,  bombs^ 
grenadoes,  saucisses,  carriages,  rests,  bandaliers,  powder,  match,  sal- 


iDumont,  vol.  6.  pt.  1,  p.  238. 
^Ibid.,  pt.  2,  p.  82. 


342  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

petre,  bullets,  pikes,  swords,  head-pieces,  cuirasses,  halberts,  lances, 
javelins,  horses,  saddles,  holsters,  belts,  and  generally  all  other  imple- 
ments of  war ;  as  also  ship  timber,  pitch,  tar,  rosin,  copper  in  sheets, 
sail  cloth,  hemp,  cordage,  and  generally  every  thing  that  is  used  in  the 
equipment  of  ships  (except  unwrought  iron  and  fir  planks),  laden  in 
Danish  ships,  and  bound  to  the  enemies  country,  are  accounted  con- 
traband goods :  but  fish  and  flesh,  fresh  or  salted,  wheat,  or  other 
grain,  flour,  pulse,  oil,  wine,  and  generally  every  thing  that  serves  for 
the  nourishment  and  sustenance  of  life,  laden  in  Danish  ships,  and 
bound  to  the  enemies  country,  are  not  accounted  contraband,  provided 
that  the  places  to  which  they  are  bound,  are  not  besieged  or  blocked 
up. 

Article  15 

Whereas,  notwithstanding  our  former  instructions  to  the  several 
commanders  aforesaid,  some  inconvenience  has  arisen  from  an  igno- 
rance of  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  engagements  with  our  good 
sister  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias :  we  being  determined  to  adhere 
strictly  to  the  faith  of  those  engagements,  and  sollicitous  to  prevent 
as  much  as  possible  all  illicit  proceedings,  do  hereby  enjoin  to  all  the 
several  commanders  aforesaid  the  strictest  observance  of  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  10th  and  11th  articles  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  con- 
cluded between  us  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  on  the  20th  of  June, 
1766,  which  articles  are  here  inserted,  that  they  may  be  accurately 
known  to  all  the  aforesaid  commanders,  and  observed  by  them  as  an 
inviolable  law. 

Article  10 

The  subjects  of  the  two  high  contracting  Parties  shall  be  at 
liberty  to  go,  come,  and  trade  freely  with  the  States,  with  which 
one  or  other  of  the  parties  shall  at  this  or  at  any  future  period  be 
engaged  in  war,  provided  they  do  not  carry  warlike  stores  to  the 
enemy. 

This  liberty,  however,  not  to  extend  to  places  actually  blocked 
up,  or  besieged,  either  by  sea  or  land.  At  all  other  times,  and 
with  the  single  exception  of  warlike  stores,  the  aforesaid  subjects 
may  transport  to  these  places  all  sorts  of  merchandise,  as  well  as 
passengers,  without  the  least  impediment.  In  the  searching  of 
merchant  ships,  men  of  war  and  privateers  shall  behave  as  favour- 
ably, as  a  state  of  actual  war  can  possibly  permit  towards  the 
most  friendly  neutral  Powers,  observing,  as  far  as  may  be,  the 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  343 

principles  and  maxims  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  are  generally 
acknowledged. 

Article  11 

All  cannon,  mortars,  firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets, 
balls,  fuses,  flint  stones,  matches,  powder,  salpeter,  sulphur, 
breast-plates,  pikes,  swords,  belts,  cartouch-bags,  saddles  and 
bridles,  beyond  the  quantity  that  may  be  necessary  for  the  use  of 
the  ship,  or  beyond  what  every  man  serving  on  board  the  ship, 
and  every  passenger  ought  to  have,  shall  be  accounted  ammunition 
or  warlike  stores,  and  if  found  shall  be  confiscated  according  to 
law,  as  contraband  goods,  or  prohibited  effects,  but  neither  the 
ships  nor  passengers,  nor  the  other  merchandises  found  at  the 
same  time,  shall  be  detained  or  hindered  from  prosecuting  their 
voyage. 

Article  16 

That  in  case  the  commander  of  any  ship  having  a  letter  of  marque 
and  reprisal  as  aforesaid,  shall  act  contrary  to  these  instructions,  or 
any  such  further  instructions  of  which  he  shall  have  due  notice,  he 
shall  forfeit  his  commission  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  and  shall, 
together  with  his  bail,  be  proceeded  against  according  to  law,  and  be 
condemned  in  costs  and  damages. 

Article  17 

That  all  commanders  of  ships  and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal  shall,  by  every  opportunity,  send  exact  copies  of  their 
journals  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Admiralty,  and  proceed  to  the  con- 
demnation of  their  prizes  as  soon  as  may  be,  and  without  delay. 

Article  18 

That  commanders  of  ships  and  vessels  having  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisals  shall,  upon  due  notice  being  given  to  them,  observe  all 
such  other  instructions  and  orders  as  we  shall  think  fit  to  direct  from 
time  to  time  for  the  better  carrying  on  this  service. 

Article  19 

That  all  persons  who  shall  violate  these,  or  any  other  of  our  in- 
structions, shall  be  severely  punished,  and  also  required  to  make  full 
reparation  to  persons  injured  contrary  to  our  instructions,  for  all  dam- 
ages they  shall  sustain  by  any  capture,  embezzlement,  demurrage,  or 
otherwise. 


344  THE  ARMED  NEUTR.\LITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  20 

That  before  any  letter  of  marque  and  reprisals  for  the  purpose 
aforesaid  shall  issue  under  seal,  bail  shall  be  given  with  sureties,  be- 
fore the  lieutenant  and  judge  of  our  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of 
England,  or  his  surrogate,  in  the  sum  of  three  thousand  pounds  sterl- 
ing, if  the  ship  carries  above  one  hundred  and  fifty  men ;  and  if  a  less 
number,  in  the  sum  of  fifteen  hundred  pounds  sterling,  which  bail  shall 
be  to  the  effect  and  in  the  form  following: 

Which  day,  time,  and  place  personally  appeared  

and  who  submitting  themselves  to  the 


jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty  of  England,  obliged  them- 
selves,   their   heirs,    executors,    and    administrators,    in    the    sum    of 

pounds  of  lawful  money  of  Great  Britain,  to 

this  effect;  that  is  to  say,  that  whereas is  duly 

authorized  by  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals,  with  the  ship  called  the 

of  the  burthen  of  about tons,  whereof 

he  the  said  goeth  master,  by  force  of  arms  to  at- 
tack, surprise,  seize,  and  take  all  ships  and  vessels,  goods,  wares  and 
merchandises,  chattels  and  effects,  belonging  to  the  States-General  of 
the  United  Provinces,  or  their  subjects,  or  others  inhabiting  within 
any  of  the  territories  of  the  aforesaid  States-General,  excepting  only 
within  the  harbours  or  roads  within  shot  of  the  cannon  of  princes  and 

States  in  amity  with  His  Majesty.     And  whereas  he  the  said  

hath  a  copy  of  certain  instructions,  approved  of 


and  passed  by  His  Majesty  in  Council,  as  by  the  tenor  of  the  said 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisals,  and  instructions  thereto  relating, 
more  at  large  appeareth.     If  therefore  nothing  be  done  by  the  said 

or  any  of  his  officers,  mariners,  or  company, 

contrary  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  said  instructions,  and  of  all  other 
instructions  which  may  be  issued  in  like  manner  hereafter,  and  where- 
of due  notice  shall  be  given  him,  but  that  the  letters  of  marque  and 
reprisals  aforesaid,  and  the  said  instructions,  shall  in  all  particulars 
be  well  and  duly  observed  and  performed,  as  far  as  they  shall  the  said 
ship,  master,  and  company  any  way  concern;  and  if  they  shall  give 
full  satisfaction  for  any  damage  or  injury  which  shall  be  done  by 
them,  or  by  any  of  them,  to  any  of  His  Majesty's  subjects,  or  of  for- 
eign States  in  amity  with  His  Majesty;  and  also  shall  duly  and  truly 
pay,  or  cause  to  be  paid,  to  His  Majesty,  or  the  customers  or  officers 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  345 

appointed  to  receive  the  same  for  His  Majesty,  the  usual  customs  due 
to  His  Majesty,  of  and  for  all  ships  and  goods  so  as  aforesaid  taken 

and  adjudged  for  prize :  and  moreover  if  the  said  

shall  not  take  any  ship  or  vessel,  or  any  goods  or  merchandises,  be- 
longing to  the  enemy,  or  otherwise  liable  to  confiscation,  through  con- 
sent, or  clandestinely,  or  by  collusion,  by  virtue,  colour,  or  pretence 
of  his  said  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals,  that  then  this  bail  shall  be 
void,  and  of  none  effect ;  and  unless  they  shall  so  do,  they  do  all 
hereby  severally  consent  that  execution  shall  issue  forth  against  them, 
their  heirs,  executors,  and  administrators,  goods  and  chattels,  where- 
soever the  same  shall  be  found,  to  the  value  of  the  sum  of 

pounds  before  mentioned :  and  in  testimony  of  the  truth  thereof  they 
have  hereunto  subscribed  their  names. 
By  His  Majesty's  command, 

Stormont 


Spanish  Ordinance  relative  to  the  Danish  Flag,  December  31,  1780^ 

When  the  King  received  the  declaration  from  the  King  of  Denmark 
in  regard  to  the  neutrality  which  he  proposed  to  follow  during  the 
present  war,  stating  that  only  such  goods  would  be  seized  as  by  general 
treaties  are  expressly  regarded  as  contraband  goods,  I  communicated 
to  your  Excellency,  with  the  approval  of  His  Majesty,  the  royal  inten- 
tions under  date  of  August  7th  last,  relative  to  the  manner  in  which 
Danish  vessels  should  be  treated ;  since  then,  the  King  has  been  in- 
formed of  the  convention  between  the  King  of  Denmark  and  the  King 
of  England,  interpreting  the  treaty  of  commerce  of  1670,  to  the  effect 
that  building  timber,  pitch,  tar,  rosin,  copper  in  plates,  sail-canvas, 
ropes  and  generally  all  things  that  may  serve  to  arm  vessels  are  like- 
wise to  be  regarded  as  contraband  goods,  in  case  they  are  found  on 
Danish  vessels  bound  for  countries  hostile  to  England,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  pig-iron  and  pine  boards;  but  that  they  may  freely  trans- 
port into  the  enemy  ports  and  countries  salted  meat,  fresh  or  salted 
fish,  wheat  and  other  grains,  vegetables,  oil,  wine,  and  any  other  arti- 


^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  349. 


346  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

cle  necessary  to  sustain  life,  it  being  however  understood  that  the  said 
ports  or  places  are  neither  besieged  nor  blockaded. 

In  consequence  of  this  conduct  of  the  Danish  Court  which,  without 
the  counsel  and  advice  of  His  Majesty,  changes  the  said  declaration 
of  accepted  neutrality,  the  King  revokes  all  concessions  which  he  had 
ordered  should  be  made  to  Danish  vessels,  on  the  ground  that  this 
could  not  be  declared  or  admitted.  And  His  Majesty  orders  that  all 
articles  specified  in  the  said  convention  between  England  and  Den- 
mark be  regarded  as  contraband  when  transported  by  vessels  of  this 
Power  for  the  service  of  the  enemies,  which  articles  are  in  general 
the  same  as  are  specified  in  Article  15  of  the  ordinance  for  privateer- 
ing, dated  July  1,  1779;  every  captain  of  my  maritime  forces  and  the 
private  corsairs  shall  have  the  said  ordinance  on  board  of  their  vessels 
in  order  to  carry  out  exactly  that  which  is  directed  in  the  presei.i 
royal  resolution. 

Madrid,  December  ?/,  i/8o. 

Le  Marquis  Gonzales  de  Castejon 

To  his  Excellency,  Admiral  Cordova. 


Act  of  January  4,  1781,  by  which  the  States-General  of  the  Nether- 
lands accede  to  the  Conventions  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  be- 
tween Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and 
Sweden^ 

The  solicitude  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  interests  and  the  rights  of  her  subjects  having  led 
her  to  give  solid  and  permanent  stability  to  a  just  and  reasonable  system 
of  neutrality  at  sea,  and  to  contract  to  this  end  a  formal  agreement 
with  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  of  Norway,  which  was 
followed  immediately  by  a  similar  one  with  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Sweden,  has  animated  Their  High  Mightinesses  the  Lords  States- 
General  of  the  United  Provinces  to  accept  the  invitation  of  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  and  to  adopt  principles  in  conformity  with  those  set 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed..  vol.  3,  p.  215. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  347 

forth  in  her  declaration  and  in  those  of  the  aforesaid  Powers.  To 
this  end  they  have  determined,  not  only  to  manifest  in  a  formal  dec- 
laration, which  was  recently  transmitted  to  the  Powers  now  at  war, 
their  point  of  view,  similar  to  that  of  tlie  Empress  and  the  two  Kings, 
her  allies,  but  also  to  take  part  directly  and  effectively,  as  principal 
contracting  Parties,  in  the  stipulations  contracted  among  them  for  the 
protection  of  the  innocent  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 

As  a  result  of  this  determination  of  Their  High  Mightinesses,  and 
by  virtue  of  Article  10  of  the  double  maritime  convention  of  Copen- 
hagen and  of  St.  Petersburg,  in  which  it  is  stated : 

The  chief  aim  and  principal  object  of  the  present  convention 
being  to  secure  the  freedom  of  trade  and  navigation,  the  high 
contracting  Powers  have  antecedently  agreed,  and  do  engage  to 
give  to  all  other  neutral  Powers  free  leave  to  accede  to  the  pres- 
ent treaty,  and,  after  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  principles  on 
which  it  rests,  share  equally  in  the  obligations  and  advantages 
thereof. 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  in  concert  with  Their 
Majesties  the  Kings,  her  allies,  had  even  less  hesitation  in  entering 
into  negotiations  with  Their  High  Mightinesses,  both  in  her  own  be- 
half and  in  behalf  of  her  two  allies,  whose  desires  and  views  had 
been  entrusted  to  her,  since  Their  High  Mightinesses  saw  fit  to  send 
to  her,  for  this  purpose,  an  embassy  extraordinary,  instructed  to  make 
known  in  their  name  how  agreeable  to  them  was  the  invitation  of  the 
Empress,  and  to  form  the  proposed  union  between  the  Crowns  of  the 
North  and  the  United  Provinces. 

To  accomplish  this  desired  and  salutary  object,  Her  Imperial  Maj- 
esty has  appointed  as  her  plenipotentiaries,  Nikita  Count  Panin,  her 
Privy  Councilor,  .Senator,  Chamberlain,  and  Chevalier  of  the  Orders 
of  St.  Andrew,  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and  St.  Anne,  John  Count 
d'Ostermann,  her  Vice  Chancellor,  Privy  Councilor,  and  Chevalier  of 
the  Orders  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky  and  St.  Anne,  Alexander  de 
Besborodka,  Major  General  of  her  Armies,  and  Colonel  commanding 
the  Kiovia  Regiment  of  Militia  of  Little  Russia,  and  Pierre  de  Ba- 
counin,  her  Councilor  of  State,  member  of  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  and  Chevalier  of  the  Order  of  St.  Anne ;  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses having  charged  with  their  full  powers  William  Louis  Baron- 
van  Wassenaer,  Lord  of  Starrenburg,  of  the  Body  of  Nobles  of  the 
Province  of  Holland  and  of  West  Friesland,   Steward  of  Rhvnland, 


348  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ordinary  Deputy  of  the  said  Province  in  the  Assembly  of  the  States- 
General,  and  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Plenipotentiary  of  Their 
High  Mightinesses  to  the  Imperial  Court  of  Russia ;  Theodore  John 
Baron  van  Heeckeren,  Lord  of  Brantzenburg,  ordinary  Deputy  in  the 
Assembly  of  the  States-General,  representing  the  First  Order  of  the 
Province  of  Utrecht,  and  their  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Pleni- 
potentiary at  the  Imperial  Court  of  Russia :  and  John  Isaac  Swaart, 
Resident  of  Their  High  Mightinesses  at  the  same  Court ;  who,  after 
having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  found  to  be  in  good  and  due 
form,  have  decided  and  concluded  that  the  entire  twelve  articles  of 
the  tvv'o  conventions  of  the  same  content  concluded  at  Copenhagen  on 
June  28/July  9,  1780,^  between  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  at  St. 
Petersburg  on  July  21/August  1,  1780,'  between  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
.  .  .^  their  clauses  and  obligations,  with  the  exception  of  the 
changes  therein,  resulting  from  the  nature  of  the  different  treaties  and 
engagements  existing  between  the  high  contracting  Parties  and  either 
of  the  Powers  now  at  war,  as  set  forth  in  Articles  2  and  3  of  the  double 
maritim.e  convention  of  Copenhagen  and  of  St.  Petersburg,  above  in- 
dicated, must  be  regarded  as  if  they  had  been  made,  concluded  and 
established,  word  for  word  between  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias  and  Their  High  Mightinesses,  as  principal  contracting  Par- 
lies, with  the  express  reservations  that  the  said  Articles  2  and  3  of 
the  aforesaid  conventions  be  particularly  adapted  to  the  former  en- 
gagements of  Their  High  Mightinesses  with  regard  to  merchandise 
and  contraband.  With  respect  to  such  merchandise  they  declare  it 
to  be  their  desire  to  hold  strictly  to  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties 
concluded  between  themselves  and  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  specifi- 
cally in  the  sixth  article  of  the  marine  treaty  with  the  Crown  of 
Spain,  of  December  17,  16.S0,*  the  third  article  of  their  treaty  with 
the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  of  December  1,  1674,^  and  the  sixteenth 
article  of  their  treaty  of  commerce,  navigation  and  marine  with  the 
Crown  of  France,  concluded  on  December  21,  1739,®  for  the  period 
of  twenty-five  years,  whose  provisions  and  specifications  on  the  sub- 
ject of  contraband  Their  High  Mightinesses  extend  indefinitely,  as 
being  founded  on  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations. 


^/Inte.  p.  299.  ^Dumont,  vol.  6,  pt.  1.  p.  570. 

2 Ante.  p.  311._    _  ^Ibid.,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  282. 

^Apparent  omission.  6\Yenck,  vol.  1,  p.  414. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  349 

In  order  to  prevent  any  inaccuracy,  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Her 
Imperial  Majesty  shall  hand  to  those  of  Their  High  Mightinesses 
certified  copies  of  the  two  conventions  of  Copenihagen  and  of  St. 
Petersburg,  which  shall  be  regarded  as  having  been  inserted  word  for 
word  in  the  present  act. 

Ratifications  of  this  act  of  accession,  concluded  between  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  and  Their  High  Mightinesses  of 
the  States-General,  shall  be  furnished  and  exchanged  here  in  St. 
Petersburg  within  the  period  of  two  months,  or  sooner  if  possible.^ 
It  has  likewise  been  agreed  that  on  the  occasion  of  this  exchange  of 
ratifications.  Their  High  Mightinesses  shall  have  transmitted  two  uni- 
form declarations,  for  Their  Majesties  the  two  Kings  allied  with  the 
Empress,  in  the  form  hereto  annexed,-  which,  through  the  interme- 
diary of  the  Minister  of  Russia  are  to  be  exchanged  for  those  of 
Their  aforesaid  Majesties,  in  virtue  of  which  these  two  Sovereigns 
and  the  Lords  States-General  accept  forthwith  among  themselves  the 
mutual  stipulations  hereinbefore  set  forth. 

In  faith  whereof  we  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
have  signed  and  affixed  hereto  the  seals  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  December  24,  1780.^ 

[L.  S.]   Count  Panin 

[L.  S.]   Count  J.  d'Ostermann 

[L.  S.]   Alexander  de  Besborodka 

[L.  S.]   Pierre  de  Bacounin 

[L.  S.]   B.  van  Wassenaer 

[L.  S.]   B.  VAN  Heeckeren 

[L.  S.]    J.   I.    SWAART 


^Ratifications  of  this  act  were  exchanged  at  St.  Petersburg  on  February  12, 
1781,  by  the  same  plenipotentiaries  who  signed  it. 
-See  post,  p.  350. 
^January  4,  1781,  new  style. 


350  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Separate  Act  joined  to  the  Act  of  January  4,  1781,  by  which  the 
States-General  of  the  Netherlands  accede  to  the  Conventions 
for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and 
Norway,  and  Russia  and  Sweden^ 

The  six  separate  articles  forming  a  part  of  the  double  convention  of 
Copenhagen  and  of  St.  Petersburg,  with  the  exception  of  the  first 
article,  which  contains  a  special  arrangement  between  the  Empire  of 
Russia  and  the  two  Crowns  of  Denmark  and  of  Sweden  with  regard 
to  the  tranquillity  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  must  be  considered  and  regarded 
as  though  they  had  been  inserted  word  for  word  in  the  act  of  ac- 
cession of  Their  High  Mightinesses  to  the  double  convention  of 
Copenhagen  and  of  St.  Petersburg,  signed  here  in  St.  Petersburg 
this  same  day.  To  elucidate  and  to  explain  the  fourth  of  these  sepa- 
rate articles  relating  to  a  provisional  arrangement  between  the  two 
high  contracting  Powers  in  the  event  of  the  joining  of  their  squad- 
rons, it  has  been  agreed  with  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  com- 
manding officer,  to  follow  the  etiquette  generally  accepted  between 
Crowned  Heads  and  the  Republic. 

In  faith  whereof,  we  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
have  signed  and  affixed  hereto  the  seal  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  December  24,  1780.- 

[L.  S.]   Count   Panin 

[L.  S.]   Count   John    d'Ostermann 

[L.  S.]  Alexander  de  Besborodka 

[L.  S.]   Pierre  de  Bacounin 

[L.  S.]   B.  van  Wassenaer 

[L.  S.]   B.  van   Heeckeren 

[L.  S.]   J.  I.  Swaart 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  219. 
^January  4,  1781,  new  style. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  351 

Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  regarding 
Their  Accession  to  the  Conventions  for  an  Armed  Neutrality 
between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and 
Sweden,  January,  1781^ 

We  make  known  that,  having  been  invited  to  accede,  as  principal 
contracting  Parties,  to  the  double  convention  concluded  at  Copen- 
hagen on  June  28/ July  9^  between  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  at 
St.  Petersburg  on  July  21/August  1,  1780,^  between  Her  Imperial 
Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  we 
formally  certify  by  this  present  declaration  that,  having  equally  at 
heart  the  maintenance  of  the  general  freedom  of  neutral  commerce 
and  navigation,  and  being  animated  in  this  respect  by  the  same  senti- 
ments as  Their  said  Majesties,  we  accede  in  all  due  form,  as  a  prin- 
cipal contracting  Party,  to  the  aforesaid  double  convention,  and  we 
bind  ourselves  in  conformity  with  what  has  been  more  fully  stated  in 
the  act  of  accession  and  the  separate  act  signed  on  December  24,  1780,* 
at  St.  Petersburg  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
and  by  those  who  have  been  authorized  by  us,  by  all  the  stipulations, 
clauses,  and  articles,  to  which  we  accede  entirely  in  their  form  and 
tenor. 

We  understand  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and 
Their  Majesties  the  Kings  of  Denmark  and  of  Sweden^  will  declare 
likewise  by  a  formal  act  that  they  have  received  and  accepted  this  our 
declaration,  and  that  Their  Imperial  and  Royal  Majesties  will  recog- 
nize us  as  a  principal  contracting  Party  to  the  double  convention  of 
Copenhagen  and  of  St.  Petersburg. 

In  faith  whereof  this  present  declaration,  which  shall  be  exchanged 
at  St.  Petersburg  for  a  similar  acceptance  on  the  part  of  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  [Sweden]  through  the  interme- 
diary of  Russia,  has  been  given  at  The  Hague,  under  the  Great  Seal 
of  our  States  and  initialed  by  the  President  of  the  Assembly  and 
signed  by  our  Qerk. 


iTranslation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  657. 
-Ante,  p.  299. 
^Ante,  p.  311. 

^January  4,  1781,  new  style.     Ante.  pp.  346,  350. 

5ln  the  copy  intended  for  Sweden  the  name  of  that  country  precedes  Den- 
mark and  Norway  throughout  the  document. 


352  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to  the  Belliger- 
ent Powers  regarding  Their  Accession  to  the  Conventions  for 
an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way, and  Russia  and  Sweden,  January,  178P 

Article  10  of  the  double  Convention  of  Copenhagen  and  of  St. 
Petersburg  having  been  communicated  to  the  Court  of  London 
(Versailles,  Madrid),  announcing  the  consent  of  the  high  contracting 
Parties  to  the  accession  of  other  neutral  Powers;  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses the  Lords  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  have  deter- 
mined to  form,  in  concert  with  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias  and  Their  Majesties  the  two  Kings,  her  allies,  a  union  founded  on 
a  just  and  reasonable  system  of  neutrality  on  the  sea,  having  for  its 
object  the  maintenance  of  the  interests  and  the  rights  of  their  sub- 
jects. To  this  end  they  have  acceded  as  principal  contracting  Parties, 
by  a  formal  act  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  on  December  24,  1780,"  to 
the  conventions  of  Copenhagen  and  of  St.  Petersburg,  concluded  on 
June  28/July  9  and  July  21/August  1,  1780,  between  Her  Imperial 
Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  Their  Majesties  the  Kings  of  Denmark 
and  of  Sweden. 

The  undersigned  Ambassador  (Envoy)  having  the  honor  to  com- 
municate this  act  to  the  Minister  of  His  Britannic  (Most  Christian, 
Catholic)  Majesty  requests  him  to  be  good  enough  to  bring  it  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  King  his  master.  His  Majesty  will  find  therein 
a  renewed  expression  of  the  principles  of  impartiality,  which  Their 
High  Mightinesses  have  constantly  professed  and  which  are  so  in 
accord  with  the  sentiments  of  justice  and  equity  which  have  decided 
them  to  adopt  the  only  means  calculated  to  protect  their  subjects 
from  the  losses,  vexations  and  dangers,  to  which  they,  their  commerce, 
and  their  navigation  might  be  exposed  as  an  unhappy  consequence  of 
the  naval  war  which  is  disturbing  the  tranquillity  of  Europe. 

Their  High  Mightinesses  are  pleased  to  believe,  because  of  the 
friendship  and  spirit  of  justice  with  which  His  Britannic  (Most  Chris- 
tian, Catholic)  Majesty  is  animated,  that  he  will  recognize  the  equity 
and  peaceful  intention  of  such  a  measure  and  that  he  will  see  to  the 
execution  of  the  orders  which  he  has  had  issued  to  all  the  officers  and 
commanders  of  his  v/ar-ships,  as  well  as  to  his  private  ship-owners,  to 


^Translation.  For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  658.  The  same  declaration 
(mutatis  mutandis)  was  sent  to  the  belligerent  Powers  by  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  the  King  of  Denmark  and  the  King  of  Sweden. 

-January  4,  1781,  new  style.     Ante,  p.  346. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  353 

respect  the  rights  and  Hberties  of  nevitral  nations,  just  as  Their  High 
Mightinesses  have  provided  that  the  subjects  of  the  Repubhc  shall 
not  engage  in  illicit  commerce  to  the  detriment  of  any  of  the  Powers 
at  war. 


Extract  from  the  Register  of  Resolutions  of  the  States-General  of 
the  Netherlands,  regarding  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality, 
January  12,  178P 

January  12,  lySi. 
Upon  the  proposition  of  the  honorable  deputies  of  the  Provinces  of 
Holland  and  of  West  Friesland,  and  upon  the  special  order  of  the 
States-General  of  the  said  Provinces  in  their  Assembly,  after  due 
deliberation  it  has  been  determined  and  agreed  upon,  that  to  the 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  States-General  at  Petersburg,  as  well 
as  to  the  Envoys  and  Ministers  von  Lynden,  Bosc  de  la  Calmette,  at 
the  Courts  of  Stockholm  and  Copenhagen,  instructions  shall  be  sent, 
there  and  as  they  may  deem  most  convenient,  to  make  substantial 
notification  to  the  efifect  that  the  States-General  by  resolution  of 
November  20,  last,-  whereof  they  were  notified  in  due  time,  joined  the 
alliance  for  the  maintenance  of  the  rights  of  neutrality  so  worthily 
established  by  Her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty,  and  trust  that  the  alli- 
ance is  thereby  perfected,  and  that  therefore,  the  convention  between 
the  Ministers  of  the  Imperial  Russian  Majesty,  and  Their  Majesties 
the  Kings,  to  whose  Courts  each  of  them  is  accredited,  and  the  Min- 
isters of  the  States-General  sent  in  special  mission  to  Petersburg  for 
that  purpose,  is  concluded  and  signed,  and  that  the  ratifications  of  the 
conventional  Powers  will  not  fail,  but  be  speedily  executed ;  that  at 
least  there  will  be  no  difficulty  encountered  to  fulfil  the  engagements 
made  with  the  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  of  the  States-General;  that 
from  the  moment  when  the  State  should  have  delivered  its  declaration 
to  the  belligerent  Powers,  the  State  should  be  regarded  as  having 
joined  the  convention,  and  therefore,  from  that  moment  share  its  ad- 
vantages, if  any  untoward  event  should  arise  between  the  time  of  the 
declaration  and  the  conclusion  of  the  convention. 


^Translation.     Dutch  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  223. 
^Anie,  p.  325. 


354  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

That  their  States-General  depend  upon,  and  have  perfect  faith  in 
the  power,  generosity,  and  loyalty  of  Her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty 
and  of  Their  Royal  Majesties  and  other  high  allies,  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  their  engagements  and  vindication  of  their  ov^n  honor,  for 
the  execution  of  the  enterprise  so  worthily  undertaken  by  them  to 
strengthen  and  safeguard  the  neutral  nations  of  Europe  against  the 
attacks  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  persevering  in  that  trust  have 
not  hesitated  in  overcoming  their  scruples  as  to  the  possible  results 
consequent  upon  the  accession  to  the  alliance  concluded  between  the 
high  Powers ;  and  aware  of  the  results  which  the  forwarding  of  the 
declaration  to  the  belligerent  Powers  demanded  in  the  premises  might 
have  for  the  Republic,  the  States-General  have  not  hesitated  to  re- 
solve in  effect  to  join  the  alliance  and  to  forward  the  declaration, 
the  sending  of  the  copies  of  the  declarations  of  the  States-General  to 
the  belligerent  Powers  having  been  notified  by  their  Ministers  to  Her 
Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  to  Their  Royal  Majesties. 

The  results  have  fully  justified  the  exact  expectations  of  the  States- 
General,  for  His  Majesty  of  Great  Britain  was  greatly  displeased  with 
the  act  of  the  States-General,  and  from  the  moment  that  His  Majesty 
of  Great  Britain  was  informed  that  the  resolution  to  join  the  armed 
neutrality  was  on  the  point  of  being  adopted  by  the  States-General, 
His  Majesty  of  Great  Britain  did  not  hesitate  to  address  the  Republic 
in  a  most  unusual  way,  and,  without  giving  it  the  necessary  time 
for  deliberation  required  by  the  form  of  government  and  constitu- 
tion of  our  Provinces — of  which  fact  His  Majesty  of  Great  Britain 
must  have  had  knowledge, — His  Majesty  demanded  immediate  satis- 
faction and  punishment  for  a  pretended  offense  relative  to  a  certain  dis- 
closed act  with  North  America,  and  without  in  any  way  asking  for  a 
provisional  answer  and  expression  of  disavowal,  without  criticism  of 
the  act,  and  without  asking  for  an  opinion  from  the  Department  of 
Justice  of  the  Provinces  of  Holland  and  of  West  Friesland  which 
were  concerned  in  the  matter  regarding  the  law  of  the  country  and 
the  reasons  which  might  or  might  not  be  adduced,  so  that  in  the  case, 
the  accused  persons  could  be  lawfully  prosecuted,  without  which, 
neither  in  the  realm  of  Great  Britain,  nor  in  the  Republic,  nor  in  any 
Avell-regulated  government,  any  one  can  be  prosecuted.  His  Majesty, 
who  could  thus  have  received  satisfaction  or  could  at  least  have  stayed 
the  threatened  measures,  decided  to  obtain  independent  satisfaction, 
attacked  the  Republic  unawares,  and  hastened  the  offensive  measures 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  355 

which  it  pleased  His  Majesty  to  take  against  the  RepubHc.  And  when 
Count  van  Welderen  on  the  part  of  the  States-General  came  to  hand 
Lord  Stormont  the  said  declaration  respecting  the  right  of  neutrality 
the  latter  almost  refused  to  accept  it,  saying  that  he  could  no  longer 
receive  him  as  the  Envoy  of  the  Republic  because  the  manifesto 
which  he  had  sent  him/  now  that  the  Renublic  was  being  regarded  as 
an  enemy,  had  meanwiiile  been  sent  to  Count  van  Welderen  one  hour 
earlier  than  that  set  by  Lord  Stormoni  the  day  before,  upon  the  re- 
peated request  of  Count  van  Welderen  on  the  same  day,  for  an  inter- 
view. 

The  States-General  trust  that,  although  the  manifesto  of  His  Ma- 
jesty of  Great  Britain,  by  which  His  Majesty  makes  known  his  in- 
tention of  regarding  the  Republic  as  an  enemy,  does  not  refer  to  the 
alliance  for  an  armed  neutrality,  yet  the  entire  action  of  the  Ministry 
of  His  Great  Britannic  Majesty,  and  the  time  when  and  the  manner 
in  which  the  said  manifesto  was  issued,  show  sufficiently  that  the 
hatred  toward  or  for  the  alliance  to  which  the  States-General  recently 
acceded  is  the  prime  reason  for  the  explosion  of  the  displeasure  of  His 
Great  Britannic  Majesty  toward  the  Republic,  and  the  consequences 
thereof  are  the  capture  of  a  very  large  nimiber  of  ships  belonging  to 
its  citizens  and  of  national  war-ships,  even  as  in  a  publicly  declared 
war. 

When  carefully  examined,  the  manifesto,  of  which  Her  Imperial 
Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties  have  been  informed  by 
His  Great  Britannic  Majesty  and  of  which  copies  will  be  sent  to  the 
Ministers  Plenipotentiary  and  Envoys  for  their  information,  bears 
evidence  of  enmity  on  account  of  the  alliance  of  the  Republic  with 
Her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties,  though 
an  effort  has  been  made  to  conceal  the  fact  with  diplomatic  rhetoric, 
and  shows  in  so  far  as  the  Republic  is  impugned  for  offenses  which 
shall  justify  the  State  in  resorting  to  hostile  attack,  that  the  same  has 
accepted  the  neutrality  without  considering  that  Her  Imperial  Russian 
Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties  are  thereby  assailed  at  the  same 
time ;  that  is,  the  Powers  mediating  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
Republic,  to  whom  the  treaties  have  been  communicated  and  are 
known  by  them,  can  not  be  judged  for  having  contracted  a  neutrality 
alliance  with  a  Power  which  they  judge  not  to  be  lawfully  neutral ; 

^Ante,  p.  330. 


356  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

furthermore,  it  was  knoAvn  before  that  the  Court  of  Great  Britain 
means  to  derive  its  pretended  right  to  renounce  its  treaty  of  1674^  with 
the  Republic,  and  thus  to  seize  its  ships  destined  for  one  of  the  beUig- 
erent  Powers,  together  with  their  belongings,  from  the  pretended  con- 
tradiction of  the  neutrality  of  the  Republic  with  its  engagements. 

The  same  reason  for  His  Great  Britannic  Majesty's  action  toward 
the  Republic :  hatred  for  its  accession  to  the  above-mentioned  alliance, 
can  also  be  seen  clearly  in  the  manifesto  itself,  in  so  far  as  the  latter 
impugns  the  Republic  for  facilitating  the  departure  of  ammunition 
ships  to  France  through  the  revocation  of  domestic  laws.  While  there 
is  no  need  to  demonstrate  the  self-evident  truth  that  up  to  the  present 
no  laws  have  been  thus  revoked  by  the  Republic  to  facilitate  such 
transportation,  the  accusation  again  shows  that  the  stumbling  block 
is  found  in  the  right  of  neutrality  which  permits  the  transportation 
by  ship  of  ammunition  to  the  belligerent  Powers ;  and  upon  this  right 
rests  the  alliance  between  her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty,  Their  Royal 
Majesties  and  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands,  the  which  has 
been  evidenced  and  affirmed  as  lawful  and  notified  by  declarations  to 
the  belligerent  Powers,  and  from  which  arose  the  hatred  toward  the 
alliance. 

At  present  the  States-General  have  no  intention  further  to  discuss 
the  said  manifesto  or  to  make  answer  to  the  same,  confident  that  Her 
Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties  are  well  able 
to  appreciate  it,  and  that  their  Ministers  and  Envoys  are  sufficiently 
familiar  with  both  the  treaties  md  the  acts  of  the  States-General 
to  be  able  to  disprove  by  strong  verbal  argumentation  the  reasons 
specified  in  the  manifesto  and  to  establish  convincingly  that  from  the 
outset  of  the  difficulties — even  by  restricting  the  commerce  of  the 
inhabitants  of  its  own  colony,  and  by  holding  one  of  its  governors  in 
the  West  Indies  accountable  because  of  complaint  lodged  against  him, — 
the  States-General  have  shown  their  unwillingness  to  do  anything  to  the 
advantage  of  the  colonies  in  America  and  that  they  have  constantly 
upheld  that  principle ;  it  is  therefore  evident  and  clear  that  His  Great 
Britannic  Majesty's  displeasure  toward  the  Republic  and  the  conse- 
quences thereof  are  to  be  found  in  the  eflfects  of  the  enmity  due  to  the 
above-mentioned  alliance,  and  on  that  account  finds  justification  for 
insisting  upon  the  true  meaning  of  Articles  7,  8  and  9  of  the  alliance 


'Dumont,  vol.  7,  pt.  1.  p.  282. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  357 

with  Her  Imperial  Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties;  that 
the  States-General — though  they  had  reason  to  feel  aggrieved  because 
of  a  single  act  which  upon  the  intervention  of  the  allies  was  repaired, — 
before  resorting  to  armed  force  had  asked  the  allies  to  afford  them  help 
for  reparation  thereof,  but  that  the  States-General,  having  been  at- 
tacked in  hostile  manner  by  His  Great  Britannic  Majesty,  because  of 
and  out  of  enmity  for  the  convention  with  Her  Imperial  Russian 
Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties,  atid  not  being  in  direct  relations 
with  His  Majesty,  have  been  compelled  to  defend  themselves  and  to 
resist  the  attack  in  the  same  manner  as  they  had  been  attacked  and  to 
meet  hostilities  with  hostilities, — believe,  if  ever  they  had  reason  so  to 
believe,  that  they  may  expect  that  the  allied  Powers  will  be  pleased  to 
make  an  actual  and  common  cause  with  them  and  to  secure  for  them  full 
satisfaction,  and  that  the  allied  Powers  will  be  pleased  to  assume  such 
further  obligations  as  may  be  required  by  the  circumstances ;  the 
States-General  request  this  most  earnestly  and  expect  this  help  with 
all  the  more  confidence,  because  they  feel  quite  certain  that  Her  Im- 
perial Russian  Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties  will  not  permit  that 
the  States-General  and  the  Republic  shall  become  the  unfortunate  vic- 
tims of  their  trust  in  the  generosity  and  the  zeal  of  Her  Imperial  Rus- 
sian Majesty  and  Their  Royal  Majesties  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
right  of  neutrality  against  the  power  of  Great  Britain,  especially  in 
the  present  circumstances  when  that  realm  is  everywhere  in  arms,  and 
the  States-General  with  the  ample  navigation  of  private  individuals, 
and  the  employment  of  a  large  number  of  sailors  are  not  equal  to  the 
task  of  operating  the  sea  power  of  the  Republic,  small  or  large  as  it 
may  be. 

The  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  and  Envoys  at  the  Courts  to  which 
they  are  accredited  shall  insistently  and  urgently  request  a  prompt  and 
sufficient  assistance  from  the  allies,  so  that  the  States-General  may 
not,  without  their  help,  before  and  at  the  time  of  the  first  onslaught, 
have  to  bear  the  weight  and  force  of  the  attack  of  His  Great  Britannic 
Majesty,  and  that  in  consequence  they  may  not  be  exposed  to  the  dan- 
ger of  becoming  useless  to  the  alliance. 

They  shall  hold  themselves  ready  to  enter  into  such  further  en- 
gagements as  the  high  allies  might  deem  necessary  for  the  further- 
ance of  the  common  cause  and  mutual  defense. 

They  shall  endeavor  to  find  out  if  there  is  a  disposition  on  the  part 
of  some  of  the  allies  to  place  at  the  service  of  the  States-General,  but 


358  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

for  the  common  defense,  some  of  their  armed  ships,  or  if  there  is  a 
wilHngness  to  transfer  such  ships,  on  the  basis  of  a  suitable  subsidy, 
to  the  States-General  which  will  ever  be  found  prepared  to  perfect  sucli 
an  arrangement,  and,  finding  that  there  is  such  a  disposition,  they  shall 
do  their  utmost  to  strengthen  it,  and,  the  sooner  the  better,  to  report 
to  the  States-General  anything  definite  and  agreeable  to  the  great  need 
of  the  Republic. 


Netherland  Ordinance  concerning  Commerce  and  Navigation, 
January  26,  178P 

The  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands  to 
all  those  who  shall  see  these  presents  or  hear  them  read,  greeting: 

We  announce  that,  the  King  of  Great  Britain  having  seen  fit  to  make 
a  hostile  attack  on  this  State  without  any  valid  reason,  we  find  ourselves 
compelled  to  do  all  that  can  help  our  defense  and  to  exercise  the  right 
which  the  conduct  of  the  said  King  gives  us  to  act  against  him  in  the 
same  way  as  he  is  acting  against  us.  And  to  prevent  any  injury  from 
that  direction,  we  are  obliged  and  constrained,  in  so  far  as  it  lies  in 
our  power,  and  in  so  far  as  it  can  be  done  in  conformity  with  the  law 
of  nations  and  without  injury  to  our  allies,  friends,  and  neutrals,  to 
deprive  the  said  King  of  the  opportunity  and  the  necessary  means 
which  he  might  use  to  injure,  more  and  more,  this  State  and  the  good 
people  of  these  Provinces. 

That  is  why  we  have  found  it  advisable  and  deemed  it  necessary  to 
issue  orders,  as  well  as  very  severe  prohibitions,  to  all  those  under  our 
authority,  and  to  inform  and  advise  in  a  friendly  manner  all  other 
nations  which  are  in  alliance  with  or  neutral  with  respect  to  this  State, 
and  by  these  presents  we  order,  prohibit,  and  advise  respectively. 

Article  1 

That  henceforth  no  one  shall  attempt  to  export  from  these  Provinces 
on  any  vessels  other  than  their  own  (or  those  that  they  may  hire  from 
the  East  or  West  Indian  Companies,  or  other  vessels  that  are  permitted 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  276. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  359 

belonging  to  individuals  in  the  service  of  the  colonies  of  this  State, 
after  having  obtained  permission  from  the  Admiralty,  under  bond 
of  three  times  the  value,  to  be  verified  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
Admiralty  Board  within  a  certain  period,  proportional  to  the  distances 
of  the  places,  and  to  be  declared  on  arrival  at  the  place  of  destination) 
any  arms,  munitions  or  any  other  war  material,  fireworks,  saltpeter, 
sulphur,  refined  or  unrefined  cannon  powder,  fuses,  cannons,  stone 
mortars,  gun  carriages,  naval  carriages,  balls,  bombs,  frames,  grenades, 
muskets,  musketoons,  guns,  pistols,  petards,  powder  bags,  helmets, 
breastplates,  shoulder-belts,  pouches,  pikes,  halberds,  swords,  bayonets, 
and  all  other  firearms  or  steel  arms,  among  which  are  included  gun- 
barrels,  locks,  and  everything  that  is  used  in  assembling  them,  horses, 
saddles,  pistol  holsters,  and  everything  that  is  used  in  harness  for 
horses ;  masts,  rods,  and  other  turned  wood,  oak  beams  and  other 
timber  for  the  construction  of  ships,  sawed  or  unsawed,  the  kinds  of 
which  are  specified  and  declared  to  be  construction  timber  by  our 
proclamation  of  August  1,  1747,  as  well  as  canvas,  hemp,  cordage, 
string,  cables,  and  furthermore  anchors,  iron,  steel,  small  iron  and 
steel,  all  kinds  of  copper,  metal,  pitch,  and  tar,  and  also  flour,  wheat, 
oats,  horse  beans  and  pigeon  beans,  under  penalty  of  confiscation,  if 
an  attempt  is  made  to  export  any  of  the  above-mentioned  articles,  and 
in  addition  a  fine  of  double  their  value,  one-third  of  which  shall  go  to 
the  informer,  one-third  to  the  officer  making  the  accusation,  and  the 
remaining  third  to  the  State. 

Article  2 

That,  moreover,  no  inhabitant  of  these  Provinces  shall  attempt  to 
export  any  of  the  above-mentioned  articles,  or  to  send  any  ships  from 
these  Provinces,  or  from  other  countries,  kingdoms,  places  or  cities, 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  any  ports,  islands,  cities,  or  places  of  Great 
Britain,  or  that  are  under  the  rule  of  the  said  King  of  Great  Britain, 
whether  in  Europe  or  outside  of  Europe.  That  no  one  also,  even  though 
a  foreigner  and  not  an  inhabitant  of  these  Provinces,  shall  undertake 
to  export  any  of  the  aforesaid  articles  from  these  Provinces  to  any 
of  those  places ;  all  under  penalty  of  confiscation  of  the  said  articles, 
and,  in  addition,  punishment  without  mitigation  as  an  enemy  of  the 
State. 


360  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  3 

And  considering  that  because  of  the  duty  that  requires  every 
legitimate  sovereign  to  defend  and  preserve  his  good  subjects  and 
inhabitants  by  all  possible  means  against  all  acts  of  violence  and 
molestation,  we  can  not  and,  according  to  the  common  law  and  the 
practices  of  all  peoples,  are  not  obliged  to  allow  any  articles  of  contra- 
band to  be  furnished  to  the  said  King  or  to  his  subjects  by  any  one 
whatsoever ;  we  desire  by  these  presents  to  notify  and  seriously  to 
request  and  exhort  all  our  allies  and  friends,  neutrals,  and,  in  general, 
all  peoples  and  nations,  not  to  attempt  until  further  notice  to  transport 
from  any  countries,  kingdoms,  ports,  place  or  cities  [  .  .  .  ^]  of 
Great  Britain  or  under  the  rule  of  the  said  King,  either  in  Europe  or 
outside  of  Europe,  any  articles  of  contraband,  recognized  as  such  in 
treaties,  or,  where  there  are  no  such  treaties  between  them  and  us,  any 
munitions  of  war  or  arms,  artillery  and  its  fireworks,  or  anything  thereto 
appertaining,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  cannon  powder,  fuses,  balls, 
pikes,  swords,  lances,  halberds,  helmets,  breastplates,  or  other  similar 
arms,  as  well  as  soldiers,  horses,  equipment  for  horses,  or  any  other  war 
material ;  since  it  is  our  intention  to  consider  as  a  legitimate  prize  and 
to  confiscate  the  aforesaid  contraband  goods  found  on  board  vessels  in 
contravention  of  our  present  notice  and  ordinance,  for  transportation 
to  the  places  mentioned. 

Article  4 

We  order,  furthermore,  all  our  inhabitants  and  subjects,  notifying 
and  exhorting  all  our  allies  and  friends,  neutrals,  and,  in  general,  all 
peoples  and  nations  that  desire  to  navigate  toward  any  kingdoms, 
countries,  cities,  or  places  of  this  State,  situated  in  the  Orient,  in  the 
Occident,  or  toward  the  north,  or  that  wish  to  sail  from  those  regions 
in  this  direction,  to  choose  and  keep  to  the  open  sea,  since  it  is  our 
intention,  and  we  so  declare  by  these  presents,  that  every  vessel  sailing 
along  the  coasts  of  England,  or  other  countries,  islands,  or  places 
that  are  under  the  rule  of  the  King  of  England,  and  all  vessels  that 
happen  to  be  in  shoals  or  shallows,  thereby  not  being  beyond  suspicion 
of  meditating  some  act  in  violation  of  our  ordinance  and  notice,  when 
loaded  wholly  or  partially  with  any  of  the  above-mentioned  articles 
of  contraband,  shall  be  seized  and  brought  in  by  captains  or  other 
naval  ofificers,  as  well  as  by  the  privateers  of  these  Provinces,  to  be 


^Apparent  omission. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  361 

adjudicated  by  the  counselors  of  the  Admiralty,  as  set  forth  in  Articles 
2  and  3  hereof,  unless  the  said  vessels  should  be  driven  into  port  by 
stormy  weather  or  some  other  great  necessity  and  from  the  circum- 
stances it  should  be  thus  interpreted  and  decided  in  this  way  by  the 
aforesaid  Admiralty  Board. 

Article  5 

That  in  order  to  forestall  and  prevent  any  fraud  that  might  be 
attempted  against  the  present  ordinance  and  notice,  we  order  and 
command  all  owners  of  vessels  and  merchants  who  are  inhabitants 
of  these  Provinces,  or  those  who  send  their  vessels  and  goods  out  of 
this  country;  we  notify  and  exhort,  moreover,  all  other  persons,  of 
whatever  nation  they  may  be  or  whencesoever  they  may  come,  not 
to  load  or  cause  to  be  loaded  in  their  vessels  goods,  wares,  or  merchan- 
dise, nor  to  transport  them  or  cause  them  to  be  transported  in  any 
other  way  than  under  regular  ship's  papers,  proper  passports,  letters 
of  destination,  bills  of  lading,  of  advice,  and  of  shipment,  or  other 
similar  documents,  as  is  required  for  loading  and  transportation  by 
virtue  of  the  laws  and  proclamations  of  the  places  where  the  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  are  loaded,  for  we  shall  consider  as  subject 
to  confiscation,  and  now  declare  to  be  legitimate  prize,  all  vessels  that 
shall  sail  with  ship's  registers  of  more  than  one  sovereign  or  regent; 
as  well  as  the  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  with  which  they  are 
loaded,  for  which  there  is  found  to  be  more  than  one  letter  of  destina- 
tion, two  sets  of  freight  invoices,  bills  of  lading,  or  other  documents, 
as  well  as  vessels  and  goods  which  are  not  properly  supplied  with 
the  aforesaid  requisite  documents. 

Article  6 

And  in  order  that  every  officer  and  commander  of  a  war-ship,  be- 
longing either  to  the  State  or  to  private  owners,  who  have  commissions 
from  His  Highness  the  Prince  of  Orange  and  of  Nassau,  in  his 
capacity  as  Admiral  General  of  these  Provinces,  may  be  assured  that 
the  vessels  which  he  may  encounter  at  sea,  laden  with  any  of  the 
aforesaid  contraband  goods,  are  not  bound  for  the  aforesaid  ports, 
cities,  and  places  of  Great  Britain  or  other  countries  under  the  rule 
of  the  aforesaid  King,  the  aforesaid  captains  shall  be  permitted  to 
accost  at  sea  all  vessels  against  which  there  may  be  any  suspicion,  and 
require  them  to  show  their  ship's  registers,  passports,  letters  of  destina- 


362  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tion,  and  bills  of  lading,  to  prove  to  whom  the  vessels  belong,  where 
and  in  what  place  they  were  loaded,  of  what  their  cargoes  consist, 
and  at  what  point  they  are  to  be  unloaded.  When  all  these  have  been 
shown  to  them  and  when  they  have  ascertained  that  the  aforesaid 
vessels  are  not  bound,  with  any  of  the  said  contraband  goods,  to  any 
ports  or  places  under  the  rule  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  they  shall 
permit  them  to  pass  freely;  but  if  the  contrary  should,  from  the 
documents  or  otherwise,  appear  to  be  the  case,  they  shall  safely  bring 
in  such  vessels  with  the  goods  on  board,  and  shall  take  possession  of 
all  the  documents  that  are  found  on  board  of  such  vessels  and  that 
have  been  shown  to  them ;  as  well  as  to  draw  up  in  writing,  in  all  due 
form,  the  declarations  which  the  masters  and  members  of  the  crew 
shall  make  with  regard  to  the  purpose  of  their  voyage ;  likewise  as  to 
the  character  of  the  vessel  and  of  its  cargo,  and  they  shall  have  the 
master  sign  these  declarations,  to  be  forwarded  and  delivered  together 
with  the  documents  found,  the  vessel  itself,  and  its  cargo  to  the  member 
of  the  Admiralty  Board,  under  whose  authority  the  capturing  vessel  is. 
As  to  vessels  under  convoy,  the  declarations  of  the  officers  of  the 
convoy  that  the  vessels  under  their  convoy  are  not  loaded  with  con- 
traband goods,  according  to  their  full  knowledge  thereof,  must  be 
accepted,  and  no  further  visit  shall  be  required. 

Article  7 

It  is  also  our  intention  that  all  the  penalties  herein  provided  shall 
apply  to  and  shall  be  enforced  against  any  of  our  inhabitants,  who 
violate  our  ordinance,  whether  merchants,  masters,  or  any  one  else, 
together  with  confiscation  of  the  vessels  and  of  the  goods  thereon 
belonging  to  the  owner,  as  provided  hereinbefore;  or  if  they  are  not 
within  reach,  they  shall  be  condemned  to  pay  a  fine  equivalent  to  the 
amount,  each  one  in  his  individual  capacity,  upon  their  arrival  in  these 
Provinces.  Or  if  it  should  be  learned  and  if  it  should  be  proved  that 
they  had  contravened  in  any  way  our  present  ordinance  and  proclama- 
tion, they  shall  be  considered  as  having  been  caught  in  the  act  and 
brought  into  port  by  our  war-ships,  or  else  seized  and  brought  to 
justice  in  this  country  by  other  officers  of  the  State. 

Article  8 

And  in  order  that  the  execution  of  our  present  ordinance  and  notice 
may  give  no  legitimate  cause  of  complaint  to  any  king,  republic,  prince. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  363 

power,  or  city,  who  are  in  alliance  and  union  with  this  State,  we  order 
and  expressly  charge  by  these  presents  all  our  nautical  commanders 
and  other  officers,  who  are  commissioned,  whether  of  the  war-ships 
of  the  State  or  of  vessels  armed  by  private  individuals  on  commissions 
of  His  Royal  Highness,  to  be  guided  strictly  by  the  alliances  and 
treaties  which  we  have  made  or  may  hereafter  make  with  other  kings, 
republics,  princes,  powers,  and  cities,  concerning  the  transportation 
of  contraband  goods.  To  the  same  end,  we  order  our  Admiralty 
Board  to  notify  in  particular  all  nautical  commanders,  both  those  of 
the  State  and  those  of  privateers  armed  under  commissions  of  His 
Highness,  to  interpret  properly  the  aforesaid  Article  3,  and  to  furnish 
them  with  extracts  from  the  said  treaties,  with  orders  to  govern  them- 
selves strictly  thereby. 

Article  9 

Jurisdiction  of  offenses  against  this  ordinance  shall  belong  to  the 
Board  of  Admiralty  in  the  districts  in  which  the  violations  shall  be 
discovered,  or  from  which  the  commanders  who  shall  make  the  seizures 
sailed. 

Article  10 

In  cases  where  the  offenders  are  not  caught  in  the  act,  but  are 
accused  thereafter,  jurisdiction  shall  belong  to  the  Board  of  Admiralty, 
or  to  the  regular  judges  before  whom  they  are  brought  in  first  instance. 
And  in  order  that  all  officers  and  all  persons  in  general  who  have  at 
heart  the  welfare  of  the  State,  and  who  are  opposed  to  such  contra- 
ventions, may  be  the  more  attentive  to  the  scrupulous  observance  of 
this  ordinance  by  each  and  every  one,  and  to  the  punishment  of 
offenders,  as  an  example,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  these 
presents,  the  money  realized  through  confiscation  and  otherwise  shall 
be  applied  as  it  ordinarily  is  by  the  proclamations  of  the  respective 
Provinces  of  the  United  Provinces,  to  wit:  one-third  to  the  informer, 
whether  he  is  a  sworn  employee  of  the  State  or  not,  one-third  to  the 
officer  making  the  accusation,  and  the  remaining  third  to  the  State. 

Article  11 

As  to  vessels  and  goods  that  shall  be  seized  and  brought  in  by 
any  war-ships  of  this  State  or  by  vessels  sailing  under  commissions, 
because   of   violation   of  the   present   ordinance,   and   which   shall   be 


364  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

declared  subject  to  confiscation  and  lawful  prize,  the  division  shall  be 
made  according  to  instructions,  proclamation,  and  ordinance  which 
have  heretofore  been  published  or  which  may  hereafter  be  published. 

Article  12 

And  in  order  that  all  vessels  and  goods,  which  shall  be  seized  and 
brought  to  these  Provinces  because  of  violations,  may  be  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  the  said  Board,  we  expressly  order  those  who  shall 
seize  them  strictly  to  observe,  and  to  see  to  it  that  all  those  whom  it 
may  concern  observe  the  terms  of  our  proclamation  of  December  1, 
1640,  against  general  pillaging  and  forcible  capture,  with  the  warning 
that  the  penalties  provided  by  the  said  proclamation  shall  be  severely 
enforced  against  those  who  may  have  attempted  any  act  contrary  to 
the  aforesaid  prohibition. 

Article  13 

To  prevent  the  losses  resulting  from  the  confiscation  of  the  afore- 
said vessels  and  goods  from  falling  on  any  one  other  than  the  offend- 
ers, and  from  affecting  through  insurance  any  other  inhabitants  of 
these  Provinces,  as  well  as  to  restrict  as  much  as  possible  English 
navigation  and  commerce,  we  expressly  order,  not  only  that  none  of 
our  inhabitants  shall  attempt  to  insure  or  to  have  insured  directly  or 
indirectly,  in  this  country  or  elsewhere,  any  contraband  goods,  in  any 
way  whatsoever ;  nor  to  give  or  to  receive  any  refunds  for  the  purpose 
of  circumventing  our  proclamation,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  on  any 
pretext  whatever,  under  penalty  of  confiscation  of  the  sums  insured 
by  the  insurers.  That  the  said  prohibition  shall  apply  both  to  insur- 
ance and  to  refunds,  and  officers  who  shall  be  convicted  of  having 
neglected  this  part  of  their  duty  shall  be  severely  punished  by  being 
deprived  of  their  positions  or  such  other  penalty  as  the  case  may 
require. 

And  in  order  that  no  one  may  allege  ignorance  hereof,  these  presents 
shall  be  proclaimed,  posted,  and  published  in  the  usual  wav. 

Done  and  adopted  in  our  Assembly  at  The  Hague  on  January  26, 
1781. 

W.  V.  Lynden 

By  order  of  Their  High  Mightinesses, 
Flacel 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  365 

British  Additional  Instruction  to  the  Commanders  of  Merchant 
Ships  and  Vessels  having  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisals, 
February  15,  178P 

An  additional  instruction  to  the  commanders  and  officers  of  all  our 
ships,  and  of  all  vessels  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisals  against 
the  French  King,  the  King  of  Spain,  and  the  States-General  of  the 
United  Provinces,  or  their  subjects,  or  others  inhabiting  their  terri- 
tories and  dominions :  also  against  the  inhabitants  of  our  rebellious 
colonies  in  America,  and  all  others  going  to,  or  coming  from  trading 
in,  the  said  colonies,  by  virtue  of  our  several  commissions,  bearing 
date  the  fifth  day  of  August,  1778,  the  twenty-third  day  of  June,  1779, 
the  twentieth  day  of  December,  1780,  and  by  virtue  of  an  Act  of 
Parliament  passed  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  our  reign.  Given  at  our 
Court  at  St.  James's  the  fifteenth  day  of  February,  1781,  and  in  the 
twenty-first  year  of  our  reign. 

Whereas,  notwithstanding  our  former  strict  instructions  to  the  sev- 
eral commanders  aforesaid,  that  nothing  be  in  any  ways  attempted 
against  the  ships,  vessels,  and  goods  of  any  prince  or  State  in  amity 
with  us,  or  of  their  subjects,  it  hath  happened  that  some  irregularities 
have  been  committed  by  some  of  the  aforesaid  commanders :  to  pre- 
vent all  such  abuses  of  our  commissions  for  the  future,  and  to  remove 
every  just  cause  of  complaint,  we  do  hereby  strictly  charge  and  enjoin 
the  most  exact  attention  and  obedience  to  our  said  instructions  in 
respect  to  princes  or  States  in  amity  with  us,  and  their  subjects,  warn- 
ing them  and  all  persons  concerned  in  said  vessels,  that  they  will  be 
inevitably  compelled  to  make  the  most  complete  and  ample  restitution 
and  amends  for  any  injuries  which  shall  be  proved  to  have  been  done 
by  them  to  the  persons  or  effects  of  neutrals,  and  will  further  incur 
such  punishment  as  may  be  by  law  inflicted  upon  the  contraveners  of 
our  orders  in  this  behalf,  and  of  our  known  regard  to  justice,  and  to 
the  interest  of  all  Powers,  and  their  subjects,  who  are  in  amity  with 
us  and  our  dominions. 

By  His  Majesty's  command, 

Stormont 


^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.  105. 


366  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Memorandum  of  the  States- General  of  the  Netherlands  to  the  Court 
of  Sweden,  demanding  the  Support  of  the  Armed  Neutrality 
League  in  Its  War  with  Great  Britain,  February  28,  178P 

The  underwritten  Envoy  Extraordinary  from  their  High  Mighti- 
nesses the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces,  to  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Sweden,  in  pursuance  of  an  express  order  from  his  masters, 
has  the  honor  to  propose  to  His  Swedish  Majesty: 

That  their  High  Mightinesses  having  acceded,  by  their  resolution  of 
the  20th  of  November,  1780,-  to  the  treaty  of  armed  neutrality,  in  con- 
formity to  the  invitation  of  the  northern  Powers ;  and  placing  the  most 
perfect  confidence  in  the  power,  magnanimity,  and  fidelity  of  Their 
Imperial  and  Royal  Majesties,  for  the  fulfilling  of  their  engagements, 
and  the  maintaining  of  their  dignity,  by  accomplishing  a  work  so  glori- 
ously undertaken,  namely,  the  liberty  of  the  seas,  and  freedom  of  navi- 
gation for  all  neutral  nations,  were  not  deterred  by  the  consideration 
of  the  conseqtiences.  which  that  accession  and  declaration  might  be 
productive  of  to  the  Republic,  from  the  part  of  the  belligerent  Powers. 
But  their  High  Mightinesses  have  declared  in  favor  of  this  accession 
and  declaration,  in  replying  implicitly  on  the  sentiments  of  Their 
Imperial  and  Royal  Majesties,  whom  they  also  acquainted  in  due  time, 
of  the  measures  taken  in  consequence  thereof. 

That  the  event  has  also  justified  their  requisition,  in  regard  to  the 
British  Court:  since  the  minister  of  the  latter,  after  his  fruitless  en- 
deavors to  thwart  the  accession  to  the  alliance,  took  the  resolution,  on 
the  first  notice  he  had  of  it,  to  speak  in  a  strain  truly  unprecedented, 
and  ill  suited  to  the  mutual  regard  which  the  respective  sovereigns  owe 
to  each  other :  without  so  much  as  granting  to  the  Republic  a  sufficient 
time  to  consider  on  the  matter,  according  to  the  political  system  of  the 
Republic,  which  His  Britannic  Majesty  is  fully  acquainted  with :  the 
English  Minister  insisted,  nevertheless,  upon  an  immediate  and  speedy 
satisfaction,  and  the  punishment  of  a  pretended  oflfense,  occasioned 
by  the  discovery  of  a  negotiation  with  North  America,  without  receiv- 
ing as  an  ample  satisfaction,  the  provisional  answer,  nor  the  formal 
disavowal  of  their  High  Mightinesses  of  a  negotiation,  of  which  (as 
acknowledged  even  by  His  Britannic  Majesty)  they  had  not  the  least 
share,  or  knowledge :  of  a  negotiation  relating  to  a  pretended  treaty, 
which,  in  itself,  sufficiently  denotes,  from  its  terms,  only  the  sketch 


^Annual  Register,  1781,  p.  311. 
'^Ante,  p.  325. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  367 

of  an  eventual  treaty  entered  into  by  private  persons,  without  being 
formally  authorized  thereto  by  the  body  of  the  magistrates  of  Amster- 
dam, or  by  the  states  of  the  Province  of  Holland,  and  much  less  by 
the  States-General,  whose  members  are  alone  authorized  to  enter  into 
engagements  in  the  name  of  the  Republic. 

The  British  Minister  went  even  so  far  as  to  refuse  noticing  the 
resolution,  by  which  the  Province  of  Holland  (the  only  one  concerned) 
was  required  to  deliberate,  how  far  the  laws  of  the  country  might 
give  authority  to  prosecute  the  persons  accused,  and  punish  them ;  a 
formality,  without  which  no  punishment  can  be  inflicted,  neither  in 
England  nor  in  this  Republic,  or  any  other  country.  Nay,  the  said 
Minister  went  so  far  as  to  threaten,  that  in  case  of  a  refusal,  his 
sovereign  would  adopt  such  means,  as  to  procure  himself  that  satisfac- 
tion. It  was  at  the  same  time  resolved  to  attack  the  RepubHc  by  sur- 
prise, and  so  far  hasten  the  measures  taken  to  begin  hostilities,  that 
Lord  Stormont,  making  use  of  vain  pretenses,  would  not  so  much  as 
accept  from  Count  Welderen  the  aforesaid  declaration ;  and  answered, 
under  his  hand,  "That  he  (Stormont)  could  no  longer  look  upon  him 
as  the  Minister  of  a  friendly  Power,  after  having  officially  acquainted 
him  of  his  King's  manifesto" :  whilst  this  very  manifesto  (and  this 
should  be  noted)  was  delivered  into  the  hands  of  Count  Welderen, 
only  an  hour  before  the  time  appointed  by  Lord  Stormont,  the  pre- 
ceding day,  for  giving  him  audience.  That,  moreover,  although  no 
mention  is  made  in  the  manifesto  alluded  to,  of  the  Republic  acceding 
to  the  treaty  of  the  armed  neutrality  (which  it  was  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance to  pass  over  in  silence),  it  nevertheless  appears  clearly,  to  the 
penetrating  eye  of  Your  Majesty,  as  well  as  to  all  Europe,  if  the 
whole  proceedings  are  attended  to,  and  the  time  and  manner  in  which 
the  manifesto  was  published,  that  the  hatred,  occasioned  by  the  Republic 
acceding  to  the  confederation  of  armed  neutrality,  is  the  true  motive 
of  His  British  Majesty's  resentment,  and  the  only  one  that  could  excite 
him  to  an  open  attack  against  the  Republic,  by  seizing,  at  once,  upon 
a  great  number  of  Dutch  merchantmen,  and  some  ships  of  war.  Be- 
sides that  the  aforesaid  manifesto,  known  to  Your  Majesty,  sufficiently 
displays  the  cause  of  England's  displeasure :  the  more  so  as  amongst 
the  pretenses  made  use  of  to  varnish  over  the  hostilities  against  the 
Republic,  it  is  said,  that  it  had  taken  a  neutral  part :  without  the  Cabinet 
of  St  James's  deigning  to  observe,  that  such  answer  was  insulting  to 
the  neutral  Powers  who  are  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  treaties  now 


368  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

in  force  between  England  and  the  Republic;  and  that  the  latter  could 
not  be  charged  with  an  intention  of  entering  into  an  alliance  with  a 
Power  not  lawfully  neuter  in  the  present  contest,  and  without  observing 
that  this  liberty  of  negotiating  had  been  put  beyond  all  doubt,  by 
England  itself ;  since  by  suspending,  in  April,  1780,^  the  effects  of  the 
treaty  passed  in  1674,  the  English  having  manifested  their  intent  of 
looking  henceforth  upon  the  Republic  as  a  neutral  Power,  no  ways 
privileged  by  any  treaty. 

That  for  the  reasons  hereabove  mentioned,  the  animosity  of  Great 
Britain  appears  still  more  conspicuous,  from  the  ill-grounded  reproach 
contained  in  the  said  manifesto  against  this  Republic,  that  their  High 
Mightinesses  had  encouraged  the  exportation  of  naval  stores  for 
France,  by  suspending  the  usual  duties  on  those  commodities,  whilst  it 
is  known  to  all  the  world,  that  such  a  suspension  has  never  taken  place, 
and  that  the  Republic  had  a  right  to  export  those  commodities,  not 
only  agreeably  to  the  treaty  in  1674,  but  also  in  conformity  to  the 
principles  laid  down  by  the  neutral  Powers  in  the  convention  of  armed 
neutrality.  That  consequently  it  would  be  needless  to  enter  any  farther 
into  the  merits  of  the  said  manifesto;  as  His  Swedish  Majesty  has  it 
in  his  power  to  appreciate  himself  its  value,  and  must,  moreover,  be 
fully  persuaded  that  the  line  of  conduct  pursued  by  their  High  Mighti- 
nesses since  the  beginning  of  the  troubles  with  America,  is  an  evident 
proof,  that  they  have  never  favored  or  countenanced  the  revolted 
colonies ;  witness  the  many  partial  condescensions  in  favor  of  England, 
which  were  merely  gratuitous  on  the  part  of  their  High  Mightinesses, 
by  circumscribing  the  trade  within  their  own  colonies ;  by  refusing  to 
grant  the  protection  of  their  convoys  to  vessels  laden  with  ship  timber ; 
and  by  recalling  the  Governor  of  St.  Eustatia  on  some  ill-grounded 
complaints  of  the  British  Ministry :  condescensions  which  have  been 
rewarded  by  the  attack  and  seizure  of  the  convoy  of  Count  Byland ;  by 
a  violation  of  the  territories  of  this  Republic,  and  by  the  taking  by 
force  some  American  vessels  from  under  the  very  batteries  of  the 
island  of  St.  Martin. 

That  Their  High  Mightinesses  having  thus  faithfully  adhered  to  the 
system  of  moderation,  it  is  evident  that  the  resentment  of  His  Britan- 
nic Majesty  arises  merely  from  their  accession  to  the  treaty  of  armed 
neutrality;  and  that,  consequently,  Their  High  Mightinesses  are  fully 
authorized  to  claim  the  performance  of  the  conditions  stipulated  in  the 


^See  the  declaration  of  April  17,  1780,  ante.  p.  281. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  369 

Articles  7,  8,  and  9  of  the  treaty  of  armed  neutrality,  which  form  the 
basis  of  that  union  and  alliance  contracted  between  Their  Imperial  and 
Royal  Majesties  and  the  Republic.  That  therefore  no  obstacles  can 
hinder  or  delay  the  fulfilling  of  the  engagements  contracted  by  virtue 
of  the  said  confederation,  of  which  the  Republic  ought  to  be  considered 
as  a  member  from  the  very  moment  in  which  their  High  Mightinesses 
acceded  to  the  sam.e  resolution  at  The  Hague ;  and  dispatched  their 
declaration,  in  conformity  to  the  said  accession  and  convention,  to  the 
belligerent  Powers. 

That  if  Their  High  Mightinesses  had  to  complain  only  of  a  single 
act  of  ofifense,  or  an  attack  committed  against  them,  which  was  likely 
to  be  redressed  by  the  friendly  interposition  of  their  allies,  they  would 
have  claimed  their  intervention  rather  than  have  recourse  to  arms;  but 
as  their  High  Mightinesses  find  themselves  actually  and  suddenly  at- 
tacked in  an  hostile  manner  by  His  Britannic  Majesty,  in  consequence 
of,  and  from  mere  resentment  of  the  above-mentioned  alliance,  they 
find  themselves  under  the  necessity  of  repelling  force  by  force,  and  to 
return  hostilities  for  hostilities ;  being  fully  persuaded  that  the  allied 
Powers  will  not  hesitate  to  make  this  their  common  cause,  and  to 
procure  to  their  Republic  due  satisfaction  and  indemnity  for  the  losses 
occasioned  by  an  attack  equally  unjust  and  violent ;  and  that  the  said 
Powers  will  moreover,  in  conjunction  with  the  States-General,  take 
such  farther  measures,  as  the  exigences  of  the  present  circumstances 
may  require.  This  Their  High  Mightinesses  solicit  with  great  earnest- 
ness, and  rely  upon  it  with  so  much  more  confidence,  as  they  are  firmly 
persuaded,  that  the  generous  and  equitable  sentiments,  which  actuate 
Their  Imperial  and  Royal  Majesties,  will  not  sufifer  them  to  let  the 
Republic  fall  a  victim  to  a  system  of  politics,  not  less  glorious  than 
founded  in  equity,  and  established  for  the  security  of  the  rights  of 
neutral  nations ;  and  especially  a^  the  Republic,  if  left  singly  exposed 
to  the  iniquitous  and  violent  attacks  of  England,  would  hardly  be  able 
to  cope  with  that  overbearing  Power,  and  thus  run  the  hazard  of 
becoming  totally  useless  to  the  said  confederation. 

For  these  reasons,  the  underwritten  Envoy  Extraordinary,  insisting 
on  the  motives  urged  here  above,  and  fully  persuaded  that  the  ratifi- 
cations of  the  treaty  signed  at  Petersburg  will  take  place  as  soon  as 
possible,  has  the  honor,  in  the  name  and  by  express  order  of  his  masters, 
to  claim  the  performance  of  the  engagements  stipulated  in  the  Articles 
7 ,  8,  and  9  of  the  said  treaty,  and  to  require,  in  virtue  thereof,  a  speedy 


370  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  adequate  assistance  from  His  Swedish  Majesty,  whose  noble  and 
equitable  sentiments,  acknowledged  by  all  Europe,  will  not  permit  him 
to  abandon  the  complete  establishment  of  a  system  worthy  the  highest 
praise. 

The  friendship  and  affection  of  Your  Majesty  towards  their  High 
Mightinesses,  leave  them  no  doubt  of  Your  Majesty's  willingly  grant- 
ing the  assistance  which  they  now  claim,  and  also  promise  to  the  under- 
written Envoy  a  speedy  and  satisfactory  answer,  which  he  solicits  the 
more  anxiously,  as  every  moment's  delay  may  be  attended  with  heavy 
and  irreparable  losses  to  the  Republic. 

D.  W.  VAN  Lynden 

Stockholm,  February  28,  jjSi. 


Memorandum  of  the  Court  of  Sweden  for  the  Court  of  Russia  con- 
cerning the  Status  of  the  Netherlands  as  a  Belligerent  and  the 
Effect  upon  the  Armed  Neutrality  League,  February  28,  178P 

When  the  Republic  of  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands  re- 
solved to  take  part  in  the  armed  neutrality  by  its  accession  to  the 
maritime  conventions  of  the  northern  Powers,  it  was  enjoying  com- 
plete neutrality,  and  there  was  no  obstacle  to  the  accomplishment  of 
an  undertaking  which  was  carried  to  its  perfection  by  an  act  of  acces- 
sion and  acceptance,  signed  at  St.  Petersburg  on  December  24,  last,  old 
style. 

By  this  act  the  Republic  bound  itself  to  the  common  cause  of  neu- 
tral Powers,  and  acquired  as  such  rights  to  the  assistance  of  the  other 
Powers,  with  which  it  was  to  share  the  obligations  and  advantages, 
in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  conventions  concluded  during 
the  past  year  between  Sweden,  Russia,  and  Denmark. 

But  the  Republic  was  unable  to  maintain  very  long  the  status  in 
which  it  had  contracted  its  engagements.  England  declared  war  on 
it  and  forced  the  Republic  to  leave  the  class  of  neutral  Powers  and 
to  take  its  place  among  the  belligerent  Powers.  All  this  took  place 
with  such  marvellous  rapidity  that  the  Ambassadors  of  both  nations 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  235. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  371 

were  recalled,  letters  of  marque  despatched,  and  several  Dutch  vessels 
taken  before  the  news  of  the  accession  concluded  at  St.  Petersburg 
reached  The  Hague. 

In  such  extraordinary  state  of  affairs,  it  is  essential  that  the  three 
Crowns  of  the  north  carefully  consider  the  nature  of  their  engage- 
ments with  respect  to  the  Republic,  and  decide  the  question  in  close 
union  and  concert. 

The  system  adopted  by  these  Powers  is  a  system  of  perfect  neu- 
trality. It  is  only  by  following  this  system  that  they  have  the  right 
to  carry  on  their  commerce  freely,  that  they  have  bound  themselves 
to  protect  it  and  mutually  to  uphold  it.  From  this  point  of  view 
they  have  fixed  the  obligations  and  the  assistance  which  they  mutually 
owe  each  other;  their  naval  armaments  are  fitted  out  accordingly  and 
are  not  intended  to  take  the  offensive  against  any  one.  The  war- 
ships of  a  neutral  nation,  the  obligations  and  advantages  are  the  same 
on  all  sides ;  but  it  is  not  the  same  with  regard  to  a  nation  at  war. 
Measures  can  not  be  concerted,  nor  can  they  act  in  common  with  such 
a  nation  without  overstepping  the  bounds  prescribed  by  a  strict  neu- 
trality, without  upsetting  the  system  upon  which  their  union  and 
their  engagements  are  founded. 

In  spite  of  so  marked  a  difference  between  the  position  of  the  three 
Crowns  of  the  north  and  that  of  the  Republic  of  Holland,  the  latter 
has  addressed  the  former  by  memoranda  transmitted  to  the  Courts  of 
Stockholm,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Copenhagen,  in  which  memoranda  the 
States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  demand  prompt  and  effective 
assistance  from  the  three  Courts  by  virtue  of  the  accession  of  the  Re- 
public to  the  conventions  of  St.  Petersburg  and  of  Copenhagen,  and 
by  virtue  of  the  engagements  therein  contained. 

The  principal  ground  on  which  the  Republic  bases  its  demand  con- 
sists in  a  combination  of  the  steps  marking  the  conduct  of  the  Court 
of  London.  It  believes  that  these  steps  clearly  show  a  determination 
not  to  allow  the  Republic  to  accede  to  the  conventions  of  the  north- 
ern Powers.  It  is  because  of  enmity  towards  this  accession  that  the 
Republic  has  been  dragged  into  the  war,  and  therefore,  in  accordance 
with  Articles  7,  8  and  9  of  the  said  conventions,  the  Powers  which 
accepted  this  accession  must  come  to  the  aid  of  the  Republic. 

In  view  of  the  extraordinary  and  violent  action  of  Great  Britain 
toward  the  Republic,  in  view  of  the  extreme  care  with  which  Lord 
Stormont  prevented  the  declaration  of  the  States-General  from  reach- 


372  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

ing  him  before  the  rupture  was  announced  to  Count  van  Welderen,  in 
view  of  all  that  preceded  and  followed  this  event,  it  is  impossible  to 
deny  the  motive  which  actuated  the  Court  of  London.  But  that  reason 
was  not  given  in  that  Court's  manifesto ;  it  mentions  only  acts  previous 
to  the  resolution  itself  of  the  States-General  with  regard  to  its  acces- 
sion ;  and  Article  6  of  the  conventions  of  Petersburg  and  of  Copen- 
hagen provides  that  the  obligations  of  the  contracting  Parties  do  not 
include  matters  which  arose  before  the  signing  of  the  said  conven- 
tions ;  that  is  to  say,  that  they  can  have  no  retroactive  effect. 

The  three  Crowns  of  the  north  are  therefore  free  to  choose  between 
adopting  the  reasoning  and  the  consequences  set  forth  by  the  States- 
General,  or  to  accept  the  reasons  announced  in  the  declaration  of  war, 
which  the  Court  of  London  has  had  published.  In  the  first  case,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  take  part  in  the  war  in  favor  of  the  Republic ;  in  the 
second,  they  can,  if  it  is  deemed  advisable,  consider  the  Republic's 
quarrel  as  foreign  to  the  cause  of  neutrals  and  declare  that  the  said 
demand  had  its  origin  in  acts  antedating  the  former's  accession ;  but 
both  of  these  lines  of  action  appear  to  have  great  drawbacks.  In  the 
first  case,  it  would  be  necessary  to  renounce  the  advantages  of  neutrality, 
the  glorious  aims  they  had  in  mind  when  they  formed  the  maritime 
association ;  it  would  be  necessary  to  fling  themselves  into  all  the  hor- 
rors and  to  suffer  all  the  losses  which  are  the  natural  consequences 
of  war.  In  the  second  case,  they  would  be  exhibiting  to  the  whole 
world  a  spectacle  of  utter  weakness,  and  their  absolute  desertion  of 
a  State  with  which  they  fear  to  bind  themselves  by  formal  engage- 
ments. 

There  remains  between  these  two  extreme  courses  a  middle  course, 
or  to  speak  more  accurately,  there  is  an  expedient,  and  it  seems  advis- 
able to  begin  with  this.  It  remains  further  to  see  just  where  this 
expedient  may  lead  and  what  its  effect  will  be.  This  expedient  would 
seem  to  consist  in  a  declaration  which  the  three  Crowns  of  the  north 
would  consider  themselves  as  authorized  to  have  delivered  to  the  Court 
of  London,  the  terms  of  which  should  be  decided  upon  among  them- 
selves, and  by  which  His  Britannic  Majesty  would  be  informed  that 
the  Republic  has  just  acceded  to  their  maritime  conventions;  that  they 
regard  the  Republic,  by  reason  of  its  accession,  as  an  ally,  having  the 
same  cause  to  uphold  and  the  same  rights  to  defend ;  that  the  three 
Crowns  of  the  north  have  no  desire  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  reasons 
which  induced  His  Britannic  Majesty  to  declare  war  on  the  Republic, 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  373 

but  that  they  acknowledge  themselves  to  be  sincerely  interested  in  the 
happiness  and  welfare  of  that  State;  that  because  of  these  sentiments 
the  allied  Courts  hope  that  His  Britannic  Majesty  will  see  fit  to  open  a 
way  for  reconciliation  and  settlement  between  himself  and  the  Re- 
public ;  that  the  three  Crowns  would  be  glad  to  use  their  good  ofiices 
to  terminate  the  differences  amicably ;  tliat  they  would  consider  them- 
selves as  performing  a  service  essential  to  humanity,  if  they  could  make 
this  reconciliation  general,  and  that  in  the  meantime  they  hope  that 
both  England  and  the  Republic  may  see  fit  to  make  a  beginning  by 
ceasing  hostilities  and  by  restoring  matters  to  the  status  that  existed 
before  the  rupture.  According  to  the  agreement  reached,  this  step  can 
be  taken  either  verbally  or  in  writing,  but  separately,  by  the  Ministers 
of  the  three  Crowms  residing  in  London.  They  should  also  decide 
among  themselves  as  to  the  time  when  these  common  representations 
should  be  made,  in  order  to  give  their  efforts  more  weight  and  greater 
force ;  and  if  their  language  is  supported  by  the  naval  armaments,  which 
the  Crowns  of  the  north  are  now  making  ready,  it  is  believed  that 
England  will  reflect  somewhat  seriously  thereon.  At  any  rate,  the 
dignity  of  our  Courts  would  seem  to  require  that  they  do  something 
in  favor  of  the  Republic  which  is  considered  as  their  ally,  and  it  is  no 
less  necessary  that  our  action  should  show  to  Europe  the  reasons,  the 
moderation,  as  well  as  the  firmness  which  have  characterized  the  con- 
duct of  our  Courts  up  to  the  present  time. 

It  can  not  be  foreseen  whether  the  English  Ministry  will  be  willing 
to  enter  into  negotiations,  or  whether  it  will  merely  pretend  to  be  will- 
ing; but  in  any  event,  the  respective  Ministers  should  at  the  same  time 
be  instructed  not  to  depart  from  the  armistice  proposal,  nor  from  the 
proposal  that  the  Republic  shall  in  the  meantime  enjoy  freedom  of 
commerce :  in  default  of  which  they  can  reply  that  they  are  not  author- 
ized to  listen  to  proposals  by  England ;  but  they  will  receive  the  pro- 
posals of  that  Court  ad  referendum,  if  such  a  condition  is  granted 
them.  The  three  Crowns  of  the  north  will  consult  with  the  Republic 
concerning  the  matters  to  be  submitted,  or  they  will  reduce  the  whole 
to  what  they  consider  just  and  reasonable ;  and  they  shall  strive  by 
common  action  to  persuade  both  of  the  interested  Powers  to  accept 
these  conditions. 

Tf  in  the  course  of  such  a  negotiation  there  should  be  an  opportunity 
to  bring  together  the  other  belligerent  Powers,  this  opportunity  shall 
be  eagerly  seized  and  an  effort  shall  be  made  to  bring  about  a  general 


374  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

pacification,  establishing  on  the  conclusion  of  peace  the  general  mari- 
time code  for  neutrals,  adopted  by  our  Courts,  the  universal  establish- 
ment of  which  will  meet  the  wishes  of  the  whole  world  and  will  elevate 
the  Crowns  cooperating  therein  to  the  highest  point  of  glory. 
Stockholm,  February  ij,  ijSi} 


Extract  from  a  Letter  of  Count  Panin,  Russian  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  H.  Sacken,  Minister  to  Copenhagen,  regarding  the 
Status  of  the  Netherlands  as  a  Belligerent,  1781- 

First,  That,  after  the  ratifications  were  exchanged  by  the  Russian 
Minister,  the  Swedish  Envoy,  and  the  Charge  d'  Affaires  of  Denmark, 
orders  have  been  given  to  the  Empress's  Ministers  at  Madrid  and 
Paris,  to  deliver,  in  conjunction  with  the  ministers  of  Denmark,  Swe- 
den, and  Holland,  the  note  agreed  on  to  declare  the  accession  of  the 
Republic  of  Holland,  in  the  same  manner  that  was  observed  with  the 
two  conventions  of  Copenhagen  and  Petersburg. 

Secondly,  That  M.  Simolin  is  charged  to  execute  the  same  commis- 
sion with  the  Ministers  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  and  afterwards  to 
add,  either  verbally,  or  in  writing,  if  the  English  Ministry  should  de- 
mand it,  that,  on  account  of  the  hostilities  that  have  broken  out  be- 
tween the  Crown  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Republic  of  the  United 
Provinces,  the  Empress  has  ordered  her  Admiralty  to  consider  the 
Republic  of  Holland  as  a  neutral  Power  with  respect  to  the  two  Courts 
of  Bourbon,  and  belligerent  with  regard  to  England,  as  the  motives 
published  by  the  latter,  that  gave  rise  to  the  hostilities,  are  entirely 
foreign  to,  and  have  nothing  common  with,  the  convention :  That  she 
is  convinced  that  this  step  is  received  by  the  Court  of  England  as  a 
new  proof  of  her  impartiality,  and  of  the  innocence  of  her  alliance, 
which  has  no  other  end  but  the  protection  of  commerce  and  the  rights 
of  neutral  nations,  and  which  neither  she  nor  her  allies  mean  to  change 
into  an  offensive  measure,  as  long  as  neither  she  nor  they  are  forced 
to  do  so  by  a  hatred  towards  their  principles,  or  by  effectual  attempts 
to  counteract  them :  That  the  Empress  did  likewise  flatter  herself,  that 
the  Court  of  London,  in  consideration  of  her  good-will  to  finish  the 
differences  that  are  arisen  between  it  and  a  power  that  was,  for  so 
long  a  time,  its  friend  and  ally,  would  do  justice  to  the  friendship  of 


^February  28,  1781,  new  style. 

^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  114,  220. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  375 

the  Empress,  and  remove  all  suspicions,  as  if,  among  the  motives  of 
the  rupture  with  Holland,  the  principal  one  had  been  the  eagerness  of 
the  Republic  to  join  the  alliance  of  the  neutral  Powers.  The  orders 
delivered  to  the  Imperial  Admiralty,  together  with  the  separate  article, 
are  to  the  following  purport : 

First,  All  the  Dutch  merchant  ships  are  to  be  treated  by  the 
squadrons  of  ships  of  war  and  separate  frigates,  on  the  same  footing 
with  the  Danish  and  Swedish  vessels,  according  to  the  order  of  the 
19th  October,  178C\  because  the  Republic  is  actually  become  a  prin- 
cipal and  immediate  party  in  all  the  rights,  prerogatives,  and  obliga- 
tions of  the  two  maritime  conventions  of  Copenhagen  and  Petersburg. 

Secondly,  This  general  rule  has,  however,  its  exceptions,  on  account 
of  the  war  between  the  Republic  and  Great  Britain,  which  attacked  it 
before  its  signing  the  act  of  accession  to  the  two  conventions,  alleging, 
for  this  rupture,  reasons  that  have  no  connection  with  the  convention. 

Thirdly,  In  consideration  of  this  important  event,  where  the  neu- 
trality does  no  more  exist,  neither  the  Empress,  nor  her  allies  the 
Kings  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,  are  by  any  means  obliged  to  enter 
into  an  effective  defence  of  the  Dutch  navigation  against  the  English. 

Fourthly,  On  the  other  hand,  this  engagement  subsists,  in  all  its 
extent,  against  the  French  and  Spaniards,  with  whom  the  Dutch  have 
conventions  and  stipulations  at  full  length  concerning  prohibited  goods, 
which  must  also  very  naturally  serve  as  a  rule  for  the  conduct  of  the 
ships ;  for  which  end.  a  copy  of  these  conventions  has  been  delivered 
to  the  Admiralty,  together  with  other  naval  papers,  that  prove  the 
property  of  Dutch  vessels :  and. 

Fifthly,  A  copy  of  the  separate  explaining  article  concluded  between 
the  Courts  of  Denmark  and  England,  has  in  like  manner  been  deliv- 
ered to  the  Admiralty  for  its  information. 


Rescript  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  to  Count  Moussin  Pouschkin, 
Her  Minister  to  Sweden,  concerning  the  Status  of  the  Nether- 
lands as  a  Belligerent  and  the  Effect  upon  the  Armed  Neutral- 
ity League,  178P 

Your  reports  and  the  communications  of  Baron  Nolken,  the  Swed- 
ish Minister,   informed   us  at   approximately  the   same  time  both   of 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccueil,  26.  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  240. 


Z7(i  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  disposition  of  the  Court  of  Sweden  with  regard  to  the  war  which 
has  broken  out  between  the  two  maritime  Powers  and  of  the  desire 
of  His  Swedish  Majesty  to  learn  our  own  sentiments  on  this  sub- 
ject. Accustomed  as  we  are  to  reply  in  kind  to  the  confidence  of  our 
allies,  we  are  still  less  inclined  to  deviate  from  this  rule  in  the  present 
circumstances,  in  which  consideration  for  our  respective  engagements 
with  regard  to  armed  neutrality  must  elicit  in  the  same  degree  our 
attention  and  our  interest.  Therefore,  you  are  authorized  to  speak 
confidentially  with  Count  Scheffer,  so  that  he  may  inform  his  mas- 
ter, telling  him  that  as  soon  as  we  learned  of  the  sudden  departure 
of  the  Duke  of  York  from  The  Hague,  we  hastened  to  make  the 
strongest  kind  of  representations  to  the  Court  of  London,  to  prevent 
it  from  entering  upon  active  hostilities.  We  were  then  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  hostilities  were  to  follow  immediately  upon  the  departure 
of  its  Ambassador.  Being  convinced  of  this  fact  a  few  days  later 
and  realizing  the  futility  of  any  step  to  prevent  hostilities,  we  turned 
our  attention  to  new  measures  better  adapted  to  the  times  and  cir- 
cumstances, which  would  be  capable  of  extinguishing  the  sparks  of 
war  at  the  outset.  We  were  led  to  this  course  by  a  twofold  reason: 
the  thought  of  humanity  suffering  from  the  shedding  of  innocent 
blood,  and  the  interests  of  neutral  nations  with  regard  to  their  com- 
merce with  belligerents.  Although,  after  the  formal  request  of  the 
King  of  England  for  our  mediation,  conjointly  with  the  Emperor  of 
the  Romans,  to  bring  about  peace  between  him  and  the  Courts  of 
France  and  Spain,  there  seemed  to  be  some  hope  for  opening  peace 
negotiations,  nevertheless,  as  time  was  required  to  discuss  the  matter 
with  the  two  Crowns  and  to  receive  their  mutual  consent,  we  have 
deemed  it  advisable  to  find  a  shorter  way  to  reconcile  England  and 
Holland  and  have  offered  our  separate  mediation^  for  that  purpose. 
It  was  our  intention  by  this  action  to  prevent  in  this  reconciliation  the 
discussion  of  any  subject  that  is  foreign  to  ihem,  especially  the  ques- 
tion of  the  independence  of  the  Americans,  which  would  have  caused 
the  chief  difficulty.  The  States-General  received  our  offer  with 
gratitude,-  and  were  eager  to  take  advantage  of  it.  as  you  will  see 
from  the  enclosure  herewith.  England,  on  the  contrary,  declined 
postponing  its  reconciliation  with  the  Republic  until  the  general  peace 


1  Proposed  in  a  memorial  presented  to  the  States-General  and  to  Great  Britain 
on  March  3,  1781.     Annual  Register.  1781,  p.  310. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  377 

negotiation,  under  the  joint  mediation  of  the  two  Imperial  Courts.^ 
When  that  takes  place,  we  shall  not  fail  to  exert  our  own  efforts  in 
favor  of  the  Republic  of  Holland  as  well  as  to  interest  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  in  its  behalf,  in  order  that  it  may  be  included  in  the 
general  pacification.  After  having  given  assurances  to  the  States- 
General,  we  promised  them  at  the  same  time  to  confer  amicably  with 
our  allies  with  a  view  to  a  further  common  and  unanimous  effort 
with  the  Court  of  London,  to  bring  it  to  a  moderate  course  and  to  the 
love  of  peace. 

We  hesitated  the  less  to  give  these  assurances  to  their  High 
Mightinesses,  because  we  noted  in  the  memorandum  of  February  17,^ 
communicated  by  Baron  Nolken,  a  copy  of  which  is  enclosed  here- 
with for  your  information,  a  decided  determination  on  the  part  of 
His  Swedish  Majesty  to  follow  a  similar  course.  The  entire  con- 
tents of  this  memorandum  show,  on  the  one  hand,  the  profound  pene- 
tration of  that  Prince,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  point  of  view  in  per- 
fect accord  with  ours.  In  truth,  the  time  and  the  circumstances  in 
which  Great  Britain  has  attacked  her  old  ally,  the  Republic  of  Hol- 
land, indicate  sufficiently  that  the  real  cause  of  her  aggression  lies  in 
the  accession  of  the  States-General  to  our  maritime  conventions,  the 
more  so  because  Holland  thereby  protected  the  navigation  and  com- 
mercial industries  of  her  subjects,  the  greater  part  of  which  was 
carried  on  with  the  enemies  of  England. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  actual  rupture 
preceded  the  formal  accession  of  their  High  Mightinesses  to  the  con- 
ventions of  Copenhagen  and  Petersburg,  and  that  the  reasons  set 
forth  antedate  and  are  foreign  to  the  cause  of  the  allies  of  the  armed 
neutrality.  In  the  first  part  of  this  argument,  Articles  7,  8,  and  9  are 
entirely  favorable  to  the  Dutch ;  but  Article  6  frees  us,  in  terms  no 
less  clear,  from  the  duty  of  participating  in  their  war  with  England. 
So  essential  a  difference  in  the  stipulations  of  these  conventions  leaves 
the  three  allied  Courts  free  to  follow  the  course  that  is  most  advan- 
tageous and  the  most  in  harmony  with  their  interests. 

There  could  be  no  more  judicious  or  wiser  appraisement  of  the 
delicacy  of  the  decision  to  be  made  than  that  adopted  in  the  Swedish 
memorandum.  The  drawbacks  on  each  side  were  discussed  and 
shown  in  their  true  light,  with  an  indication  of  the  best  way  to  avoid 


->-Ibid.,  p.  315. 

-February  28,  1781,  new  style.     Ante,  p.  370. 


378  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

them.  In  admitting  this  method — that  is  to  say,  the  observance  of 
neutrahty  as  the  rule  of  conduct  for  the  three  aUied  Crowns  in  the 
nev\^  war  between  maritime  Powers, — we  did  not  fail  to  inform  at 
once  the  Courts  of  Stockholm  and  Copenhagen  of  the  orders  which 
we  had  transmitted  to  our  commanding  officers  at  sea  to  regard  the 
Republic  of  the  United  Provinces  as  a  neutral  Power  with  respect  to 
the  two  branches  of  the  House  of  Bourbon,  and  belligerent  with  re- 
spect to  England.  In  calculating  the  time,  we  shall  expect  to  hear 
soon  from  you  and  from  the  Councilor  of  State,  Mr.  Sacken,  that 
the  Kings  our  allies  have  likewise  given  similar  orders  in  their  States, 
so  that  all  our  actions  and  all  the  steps  that  we  take  shall  be  every- 
where entirely  uniform  in  all  respects,  and  bear  witness  to  the  close 
union  among  us,  which  in  the  centuries  to  come  must  justify  this 
beneficent  system  of  neutral  merchant  navigation. 

After  having  taken  the  measures  that  we  owe  to  the  welfare  of 
our  own  States  before  all  foreign  interests,  we  shall  not  fail,  as  we 
have  said  heretofore,  to  employ  in  favor  of  the  Republic  of  Holland 
all  means  compatible  with  this  paramount  duty.  Consequently  we 
willingly  give  our  support  to  the  idea  of  His  Swedish  Majesty  that 
suitable  representations  be  made  at  the  Court  of  London  in  the  name 
of  the  three  allied  Courts.  In  the  Swedish  memorandum  there  is 
question  of  a  declaration,  but  a  declaration  might  by  its  very  nature 
carry  us  beyond  our  intentions,  while  a  mere  verbal  hint,  expressing 
the  same  views  with  the  same  force,  can  bind  us  in  no  way  against 
our  will  and  desire.  This  observation,  as  simple  as  it  is  essential,  will 
not  escape  Count  Schefifer's  sagacit}',  with  whom  you  are  to  confer 
as  to  the  wording  of  these  representations,  as  to  the  time  when  they 
shall  be  made  at  London,  and  as  to  the  manner  in  which  our  respec- 
tive Ministers  at  that  Court  shall  make  them. 

We  should  not  have  placed  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  adoption 
of  the  very  wording  proposed  in  the  above-mentioned  memorandum, 
since  we  found  it  as  moderate  as  it  was  in  keeping  with  the  purpose 
in  view,  if  circumstances,  which  have  now  become  well  known  to  the 
Court  of  Stockholm,  did  not  seem  to  require  certain  changes.  To 
this  end,  you  will  find  hereto  annexed  a  new  draft  of  the  representa- 
tions,^ which  you  will  bring  to  the  -knowledge  of  Count  de  ScheflFer, 
telling  him  that  in  our  opinion,  in  order  that  they  may  be  more  readily 


^Not  printed  in  Martens. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  379 

understood  by  the  English  Ministr}',  they  might  be  deHvered  in  writ- 
ing, on  condition,  however,  that  they  be  regarded  as  merely  a  verbal 
hint.  We  shall  not  object  if  the  Court  of  Sweden  or  the  Court  of 
Denmark,  for  reasons  of  their  own,  should  make  use  of  a  different 
wording  or  of  a  different  style.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  substance  is  the 
same,  and  if  on  that  account  the  English  Ministers  pay  greater  atten- 
tion to  this  salutary  action  on  the  part  of  the  three  sovereigns  in 
concert. 

The  speeches  and  the  conduct  of  these  Ministers  indicate  plainly 
enough  that  nothing  short  of  the  fear  of  involving  their  country  in  a 
war  with  all  Europe  and  of  being  taxed  with  personal  responsibility 
therefor  will  induce  them  to  listen  to  reasonable  terms  of  peace.  To 
make  them  more  tractable,  it  would  doubtless  be  well  to  keep  this  fear 
alive  in  them.  There  is  a  means  of  accomplishing  this  which  is  as 
efficacious  as  it  is  inexpensive  in  the  fact  that  the  sovereigns  hold  a 
considerable  portion  of  their  naval  forces  armed  and  ready  for  action. 
Let  the  Swedish  and  Danish  squadrons  cruise  for  a  time  beyond  the 
Sound,  and  we  for  our  part  shall  keep  a  squadron  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  another  in  the  Arctic  Ocean,  as  a  defensive  measure,  fol- 
lowing the  example  of  the  preceding  year  against  foreign  privateers. 
And  as,  to  assist  this  twofold  action,  our  squadrons  which  passed  the 
winter  of  last  year  at  Leghorn  and  at  Lisbon,  are  to  return  imme- 
diately or  have  already  returned  to  the  Baltic,  we  shall  thus  present  at 
the  same  time  very  respectable  armaments  in  these  different  seas.  The 
possibility  of  the  Russian,  Swedish,  and  Danish  squadrons  meeting 
at  the  same  point  immediately  on  the  orders  of  their  sovereigns  will 
doubtless  have  its  effect  on  all  the  belligerent  Powers  and  will  at  the 
same  time  ensure  the  safety  of  the  merchant  navigation  of  our  respec- 
tive subjects.  Therefore  such  a  joining  of  forces,  even  before  it  is 
effected,  will  secure  to  the  three  Courts  a  very  great  and  a  very  real 
advantage.  In  communicating  a  summary  of  this  rescript  to  Mr. 
Sacken,  we  enjoined  him  to  discuss  its  contents  with  the  Danish  Min- 
ister and  to  inform  us  without  delay  of  the  result  of  their  conference. 
He  has  orders  to  inform  you  directly,  so  that  as  much  time  as  possi- 
ble may  be  gained  in  putting  into  execution  concerted  and  unanimous 
m.easures.  to  be  decided  upon  among  us,  and  so  that  we  may  be  in  a 
position  to  give  our  Minister  at  London  necessary  instructions,  which 
shall  be  sufficient  together  with  those  that  our  allies  will  give  to  their 
Ministers  at  the  same  Court.     We  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  the 


380  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

rescript  sent  to  the  said  Mr.  Sacken.^  You  will  bring  it  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Swedish  Minister,  and  you  will  insist  in  your  conversa- 
tion with  him  upon  the  necessity  of  his  Court's  entering,  on  its  part, 
into  direct  communication  with  the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  also  for  the 
purpose  of  saving  time.  As  it  is  far  from  our  intention  to  embarrass, 
in  a  common  cause,  the  will  and  intentions  of  the  Kings,  our  allies, 
you  will  not  fail  in  your  conversation  with  the  Swedish  Minister  to 
discuss  with  him  the  sentiments  of  his  own  Court,  and  to  receive  ad 
referendum  all  proposals  that  he  may  submit,  assuring  him  in  ad- 
vance that  we  shall  consider  them  with  all  due  respect  and  deference. 


Counter-Manifesto  of  the  States- General  of  the  Netherlands  regard- 
ing Relations  with  Great  Britain,  March   12,   1781- 

If  ever  the  world's  annals  have  furnished  an  example  of  a  free  and 
independent  State  hostilely  attacked  in  the  most  unjust  manner  and 
without  the  least  vestige  of  justice  or  equity  by  a  neighboring  Power 
long  allied  and  closely  bound  to  it  by  ties  of  interests  in  common,  that 
State  is  without  dispute  the  Republic  of  the  United  Provinces  of  the 
Netherlands,  which  is  now  in  such  a  situation  with  respect  to  the 
King  of  Great  Britain  and  his  Ministry'. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  troubles  between  that  kingdom  and  its 
colonies  in  America,  Their  High  Mightinesses,  though  not  obliged  to 
take  any  part  therein,  had  formed  the  steadfast  and  invariable  design 
to  adopt  and  to  follow,  with  regard  to  these  troubles,  a  system  of  the 
most  perfect  and  scrupulous  neutrality.  And  when  these  same  trou- 
bles afterwards  resulted  in  a  war  which  extended  to  several  other 
Powers  and  spread  to  many  quarters  of  the  world,  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses constantly  observed  and  followed  this  same  system,  while  at 
the  same  time  they  have  not  failed  on  more  than  one  occasion  to  give, 
with  respect  to  very  vital  matters,  the  most  convincing  evidence  of 
their  sincere  disposition  to  satisfy  His  Majesty's  desires,  in  so  far  as 


^ Ante,  p.  374. 

^Hennings,  vol.  1,  p.  73.     For  the  manifesto  of  Great  Britain,  see  ante,  p.  330. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  381 

they  were  able  to  do  so  without  deviating  from  the  rules  of  impar- 
tiality and  without  compromising  the  rights  of  their  sovereignty. 

It  was  to  this  intent  and  purpose  that  Their  High  Mightinesses,  in 
the  first  instance  and  at  the  first  request  of  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
caused  to  be  published  the  most  explicit  prohibitions  against  the  trans- 
portation of  munitions  of  war  to  His  Majesty's  colonies  in  America 
and  against  all  fraudulent  trade  with  those  colonies ;  and  in  order  that 
these  prohibitions  might  be  more  effectively  executed,  Their  High 
Mightinesses  did  not  hesitate  to  adopt  additional  measures  which 
greatly  limited  and  obstructed  the  navigation  and  commerce  of  their 
own  subjects  with  the  State's  colonies  in  the  West  Indies. 

It  was,  moreover,  to  this  same  intent  and  purpose  that  Their  High 
Mightinesses  sent  the  most  precise  orders  to  all  the  governors  and 
commanders  of  their  colonies  and  their  establishments,  as  well  as  to 
all  the  commanding  officers  of  their  war-ships,  so  that  they  might  take 
care  to  do  nothing  with  respect  to  the  flag  of  the  American  Congress 
that  might  legitimately  be  interpreted  as  a  recognition  of  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  aforesaid  colonies. 

And  it  was  likewise  and  above  all  to  this  intent  and  purpose  that 
Their  High  Mightinesses,  having  received  a  memorial,  which  was  pre- 
sented to  them  by  the  Ambassador  of  England,  containing  the  most 
serious  complaints  against  the  Governor  of  St.  Eustace,  saw  fit  to  con- 
sider this  memorial,  although  it  was  couched  in  language  not  in  keeping 
with  the  regard  that  sovereign  Powers  owe  to  one  another.  This  was 
soon  followed  by  the  recall  of  the  said  Governor,  whom  Their  High 
Mightinesses  obliged  to  account  for  his  conduct  and  whom  they  did 
not  permit  to  return  to  his  residence  until  he  had  cleared  himself  of 
all  the  charges  brought  against  him,  by  the  submission  of  exculpatory 
evidence,  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  without  delay  to  the  Ministry  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty. 

It  was  by  means  of  these  measures  that  Their  High  Mightinesses, 
having  always  been  most  anxious  to  avoid  giving  His  Britannic  Maj- 
esty the  slightest  cause  for  displeasure,  have  constantly  striven  to 
maintain  and  cultivate  friendship  and  harmony. 

But  His  Britannic  Majesty's  conduct  toward  the  Republic  has  been 
the  very  opposite.  The  troubles  between  the  Courts  of  London  and 
of  Versailles  had  scarcely  begun  when  the  ports  of  England  were 
filled  with  Dutch  ships  unjustly  seized  and  detained.  These  vessels 
had  sailed,  relying  on  treaties,  and  were  not  laden  with  any  goods 


382  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Other  than  those  which  the  treaties  expressly  declared  to  be  free  and 
permissible.  Free  cargoes  felt  the  severity  of  the  law  of  an  arbitrary 
and  despotic  authority.  The  Cabinet  of  St.  James,  recognizing  no 
other  rules  than  an  alleged  right  of  temporary  convenience,  saw  fit  to 
appropriate  these  cargoes  for  the  Crown  by  forced  sale  and  to  use 
them  for  the  benefit  of  the  King's  navy.  The  most  energetic  and 
serious  representations  on  the  part  of  Their  High  Mightinesses  against 
such  proceedings  were  useless,  and  an  appeal  in  the  strongest  manner 
to  the  treaty  of  commerce  existing  between  England  and  the  Republic 
was  in  vain.  By  this  treaty  the  rights  and  liberties  of  a  neutral  flag 
were  clearly  defined  and  stated.  The  subjects  of  Great  Britain  had 
enjoyed  in  full  the  advantages  of  this  in  the  first  and  only  instance 
that  it  pleased  the  Court  of  London  to  remain  neutral  while  the  Re- 
public was  at  war.  Now,  in  the  contrary  case,  that  Court  could  not 
without  the  greatest  injustice  refuse  the  Republic  enjoyment  of  the 
same  advantages ;  and  just  as  His  Britannic  Majesty  had  no  right  to 
nullify  the  beneficial  effect  of  this  treaty  with  respect  to  Their  High 
Mightinesses,  so  was  he  unwarranted  in  attempting  to  swerve  them 
from  the  neutrality  which  they  had  embraced  and  to  force  them  to 
plunge  into  a  war,  the  cause  of  which  lay  in  rights  and  possessions  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty  beyond  the  scope  of  defensive  treaties.  Never- 
theless it  was  this  treaty  which  His  Majesty,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  troubles  with  the  Crown  of  France,  did  not  scruple  to  infringe  and 
violate.  The  contraventions  and  infractions  of  this  treaty  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain  and  the  arbitrary  decisions  of  the  courts  of  justice 
of  that  Kingdom,  which  were  in  direct  contradiction  with  the  express 
provisions  of  the  said  treaty,  became  more  numerous  from  day  to  day. 
The  merchant  ships  of  the  Republic  were  the  innocent  victims  of 
cumulative  exactions  and  acts  of  violence  on  the  part  of  English  ships 
and  privateers.  They  did  not  stop  there.  Even  the  State's  flag  was 
not  spared,  but  was  openly  insulted  and  outraged  by  the  hostile  attack 
of  the  convoy  under  the  command  of  Rear  Admiral  Count  van  By- 
landt.  The  most  emphatic  representations  on  the  part  of  the  State 
to  His  Britannic  Majesty  were  of  no  avail.  The  vessels  seized  from 
this  convoy  were  declared  to  be  lawful  prize,  and  this  insult  to  the 
flag  of  the  Republic  was  soon  followed  by  an  open  violation  of  its 
neutral  territory  both  in  Europe  and  in  America.  Two  examples  will 
suffice.  At  the  Island  of  St.  Martin  vessels  belonging  to  His  Britan- 
nic Majesty  attacked  and  seized  by  force  several  vessels  which  were 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  383 

lying  in  the  roadstead  under  the  guns  of  the  fortress,  where,  accord- 
ing to  the  inviolable  law  of  nations,  they  should  have  found  a  safe 
refuge.  The  insolent  acts  committed  by  an  English  armed  ship  on 
the  coast  of  the  Republic  near  the  Island  of  Goedereede  furnish  the 
second  example  of  such  violations.  These  insolent  acts  were  carried 
so  far  that  several  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  island,  who  happened  to 
be  on  its  shores,  where  they  had  every  reason  to  believe  themselves 
safe  from  insult,  were  exposed  by  the  fire  of  this  ship  to  the  gravest 
danger,  which  they  were  able  to  escape  only  by  withdrawing  to  the 
interior  of  the  island.  For  these  unheard-of  acts,  the  Republic,  in 
spite  of  its  well-founded  representations,  has  been  unable  to  obtain 
the  slightest  satisfaction. 

While  matters  were  in  a  situation  which  left  their  High  Mightinesses 
one  of  two  alternatives — either  to  witness  the  complete  annihilation  of 
the  navigation  and  commerce  of  their  subjects  upon  which  depends 
the  prosperity  or  the  ruin  of  their  subjects,  or  to  take  action  against 
their  old  friend  and  ally — the  magnanimous  heart  of  Her  Majesty  the 
Empress  of  Russia  led  her  to  invite  the  Republic,  with  as  much  affec- 
tion as  humanitarian  impulses,  to  take  the  most  equitable  measures, 
which  were  entirely  in  conformity  with  the  treaties  existing  between 
them  and  other  Powers,  in  order  to  defend  and  to  maintain  conjointly 
with  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and  the  other  Powers  of  the  north  the 
privileges  and  immunities  which  the  law  of  nations  and  the  most 
solemn  treaties  ensure  to  a  neutral  flag. 

This  invitation  could  not  but  be  extremely  agreeable  to  Their  High 
Mightinesses,  since  it  offered  them  a  means  of  placing  the  protection 
of  their  subjects'  commerce  on  the  most  solid  foundations  and  opened 
the  way  to  ensuring  their  independence  against  infraction  without  in 
any  manner  derogating  either  from  the  alliances  contracted  with  His 
Britannic  Majesty  or  from  those  contracted  with  the  other  belligerent 
Powers. 

But  this  is  the  very  means  of  which  the  Court  of  London  has  at- 
tempted to  deprive  the  Republic  by  going  to  the  most  extreme  lengths, 
recalling  its  Ambassador,  publishing  a  manifesto  of  pretended  griev- 
ances, and  granting  letters  of  marque  and  permitting  pretended  re- 
prisals against  the  State,  its  subjects,  and  their  property;  by  all  of 
which  acts  that  Court  has  shown  only  too  well  its  design  long  since 
formed  of  laying  aside  the  vital  interests  which  united  the  two  nations 


384  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  of  breaking  the  bonds  of  their  ancient  friendship  by  waging  a 
most  unjust  war  against  the  State. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  refute  at  length  the  reasons  and  pre- 
tended grievances  alleged  in  this  manifesto  to  convince  every  impar- 
tial man  of  their  groundlessness.  As  regards  His  Britannic  Majesty's 
offer  to  hold  friendly  conferences,  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out  in  a  few 
words  that  nothing  but  the  aforesaid  marine  treaty  could  form  the 
subject  of  such  conferences ;  that  the  provisions  of  this  treaty,  worded 
most  explicitly,  could  not  be  subject  to  any  doubt  or  ambiguity ;  that 
this  treaty  gives  neutral  Powers  the  right  to  carry  freely  to  the  ports 
of  belligerent  Powers  all  kinds  of  naval  munitions ;  that  the  Republic 
having  no  other  aim  and  desiring  nothing  more  from  His  Britannic 
Majesty  than  the  tranquil  and  peaceful  enjoyment  of  the  rights  stipu- 
lated by  this  treaty,  a  point  so  absolutely  clear  and  incontestably  right 
could  not  be  made  the  subject  of  negotiation  or  of  a  convention  de- 
rogatory to  this  treaty,  inasmuch  as  Their  High  Mightinesses  could 
not  obtain  therefrom  nor  show  themselves  disposed  to  renounce  volun- 
tarily rights  which  they  had  justly  acquired  or  to  waive  these  rights 
out  of  regard  for  the  Court  of  England — a  renunciation  which,  being 
advantageous  to  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  would  have  been  in- 
compatible with  the  principles  of  neutrality,  and  by  it  Their  High 
Mightinesses  would  have  exposed  the  security  of  the  State  to  dangers 
from  another  quarter,  which  they  were  obliged  carefully  to  avoid — a 
renunciation,  moreover,  which  would  have  done  irreparable  injury  to 
the  Republic's  commerce  and  navigation,  its  principal  support  and  the 
source  of  its  prosperity,  since  the  dififerent  branches  of  commerce  are 
so  closely  interlocked  that  they  form  an  entity  from  which  it  is  im- 
possible to  cut  ofif  so  considerable  a  part  without  causing  the  decline 
and  ruin  of  the  whole  not  to  mention  the  fact  that,  while  Their  High 
Mightinesses  were  raising  just  objections  to  the  proposed  conferences, 
they  none  the  less  moderated  and  tempered  by  a  provisional  resolution 
the  efiFective  exercise  of  their  right. 

As  regards  the  aid  demanded.  Their  High  Mightinesses  cannot  con- 
ceal the  fact  that  they  have  never  been  able  to  understand  how  His 
Britannic  Majesty  could  have  believed  himself  warranted  with  the 
slightest  semblance  of  justice  or  equity  in  insisting  upon  the  aid  stipu- 
lated by  the  treaties,  when  on  a  former  occasion  he  had  not  lived  up 
to  the  obligation  imposed  upon  him  by  his  treaties  with  the  Republic. 
Their  High  Mightinesses  have  been  no  less  surprised  to  perceive  that. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  385 

while  the  troubles  in  America  and  their  direct  consequences  could  not 
by  virtue  of  any  treaty  concern  the  Republic,  and  though  the  aid  had 
not  been  demanded  until  after  the  Crown  of  Spain  had  increased  the 
number  of  belligerent  Powers,  His  Britannic  Majesty  nevertheless 
took  occasion  on  that  occurrence  to  insist  upon  his  demand  earnestly 
and  ardently,  as  if  His  Majesty  had  a  right  to  claim  and  maintain  that 
the  mere  fact  that  war  had  broken  out  between  him  and  another  State 
was  sufficient  to  compel  the  State  to  grant  at  once,  and  without  first 
looking  into  the  facts,  the  aid  stipulated.  The  Republic,  it  is  true, 
had  bound  itself  by  treaties  to  assist  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
whenever  that  Kingdom  should  be  attacked  or  menaced  with  an  un- 
just war.  Furthermore,  in  such  an  event  the  Republic  was  obliged  to 
declare  war  on  the  aggressor,  but  never  did  Their  High  Mightinesses 
give  up  the  right,  which  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence  from  all 
defensive  alliances  and  which  allied  Powers  incontestably  possess,  to 
investigate  first  and  before  granting  aid  or  taking  part  in  the  war,  the 
origin  of  the  dissensions  that  have  arisen  and  the  nature  of  the  dif- 
ferences which  have  caused  them,  as  well  as  to  examine  and  weigh 
carefully  the  grounds  and  reasons  which  may  establish  the  existence 
of  a  casus  foederis  and  which  must  form  the  basis  of  the  justice  and 
legitimacy  of  the  war  from  the  standpoint  of  that  one  of  the  confed- 
erated Powers  which  seeks  assistance ;  and  there  exists  no  treaty  by 
which  their  High  Mightinesses  have  renounced  the  independence  of 
the  State  and  sacrificed  their  interests  to  those  of  Great  Britain  to  the 
point  of  depriving  themselves  of  the  right  of  so  necessary  and  indis- 
pensable an  examination  by  adopting  a  course  by  which  they  might  be 
considered  as  bound  to  submit  to  the  pleasure  of  the  Court  of  Eng- 
land and  to  grant  the  assistance  asked,  even  when  that  Court  may  see 
fit,  in  a  quarrel  with  another  Power,  to  prefer  a  resort  to  arms  to  a 
reasonable  settlement  of  grievances  that  are  well  founded. 

It  is  therefore  in  no  party  spirit  nor  as  the  result  of  the  machin- 
ations of  a  dominant  cabal,  but  after  mature  deliberation  and  in  the 
sincere  desire  of  upholding  the  vital  interests  of  the  Republic  that  the 
States  of  the  respective  Provinces  were  unanimous  in  expressing  the 
opinion  that  the  aid  requested  should  be  refused  in  the  most  polite 
manner.  And  Their  High  Mightinesses  would  not  have  failed,  pur- 
suant to  these  resolutions,  to  transmit  to  His  Britannic  Majesty  a  reply 
to  the  repeated  requests  for  aid,  but  for  the  unheard-of  and  violent 
attack  upon  the  flag  of  the  State  under  the  command  of  Rear  Admiral 


386  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

van  Bylandt,  the  refusal  to  give  satisfaction  on  so  grave  a  point,  and 
the  declaration,  as  strange  as  it  was  unjust,  that  His  Majesty  saw  fit 
to  make  regarding  the  suspension  of  treaties  between  him  and  the 
Republic,  all  of  which  events,  calling  for  deliberations  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent character,  brought  to  a  close  the  deliberations  which  had  taken 
place  on  the  subject  of  the  said  request. 

In  vain  and  without  any  semblance  of  truth  did  the  British  Govern- 
ment try  to  increase  its  list  of  grievances,  alleging  that  the  abolition  of 
export  duties  tended  to  facilitate  the  transportation  of  naval  muni- 
tions to  France,  for,  although  the  abolition  of  these  duties  pertained 
to  the  regulation  of  domestic  commerce,  a  right  which  all  sovereigns 
incontestably  possess  and  for  which  they  are  not  accountable  to  any 
one,  this  point  was  taken  under  consideration,  it  has  never  been  set- 
tled, so  that  these  duties  are  still  levied  on  the  old  basis,  and  there 
is  no  foundation  whatever  for  the  statements  on  the  subject  contained 
in  the  manifesto,  although  it  cannot  be  denied  that  His  Britannic 
Majesty's  conduct  toward  the  Republic  would  be  justification  enough 
for  such  a  measure  on  the  part  of  Their  High  Mightinesses. 

There  is  just  as  little  ground  for  His  Britannic  Majesty's  displeas- 
ure at  what  occurred  with  regard  to  Paul  Jones,  the  American.  Many 
years  ago  Their  High  Mightinesses  had  issued  and  caused  to  be  pub- 
lished far  and  wide  orders  regarding  the  admission  of  corsairs  and 
privateers  of  foreign  nations  with  their  prizes  to  ports  under  their 
dominion,  which  orders  have  up  to  the  present  time  been  observed  and 
executed  without  any  exception.  In  the  case  in  point  Their  High 
Mightinesses  could  not  deviate  from  these  orders  with  respect  to  a 
privateer  holding  the  commission  of  the  American  Congress,  which 
happened  to  be  in  the  roadstead  of  Texel  in  company  with  the  war 
frigates  of  a  sovereign  Power,  without  sitting  in  judgment  and  pass- 
ing upon  matters  in  which  Their  High  Mightinesses  were  not  obliged 
to  take  part  and  in  which  it  did  not  appear  to  them  to  be  compatible 
with  the  interests  of  the  Republic  to  interfere  in  any  way.  Their 
High  Mightinesses  therefore  considered  it  advisable  not  to  deviate 
from  the  orders  of  such  long  standing,  but  they  resolved  to  issue  the 
most  explicit  prohibition  to  prevent  the  said  privateer  from  securing 
munitions  of  war  and  ordered  it  to  leave  the  roadstead  as  soon  as 
possible  and  not  to  remain  longer  than  was  absolutely  necessary  to 
repair  the  damages  suffered  from  the  sea,  with  the  formal  warning 
that,  in  case  of  a  longer  stay,  they  would  be  obliged  to  compel  his  de- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  387 

parture,  to  which  end  the  States  officer  in  charge  of  the  said  road- 
stead made  ready  to  take  the  necessary  action,  the  effect  of  which  was 
that  this  privateer  had  barely  time  to  escape. 

With  regard  to  occurrences  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  the  infor- 
mation which  Their  High  Mightinesses  have  received  from  time  to 
time  from  the  East  Indies  is  the  exact  opposite  of  that  which  appears 
to  come  to  His  British  Majesty.  The  repeated  complaints  which  the 
directors  of  the  East  India  Company  have  addressed  to  Their  High 
Mightinesses  and  which  the  latter,  through  their  love  of  peace,  have 
allowed  to  go  no  further,  are  an  incontestable  proof  thereof,  and  the 
measures  in  regard  to  the  West  Indies,  set  forth  in  detail  above,  stand 
as  an  unanswerable  proof  of  the  sincerity,  the  zeal,  and  the  care  with 
which  Their  High  Mightinesses  have  taken  it  upon  themselves  to  main- 
tain the  strictest  and  most  scrupulous  neutrality  in  these  countries; 
and  Their  High  Mightinesses  have  never  been  able  to  discover  any 
legal  proof  of  an  infraction  of  their  orders  in  this  respect. 

As  regards  a  possible  treaty  of  commerce  with  North  America,  pro- 
posed by  a  member  of  the  Government  from  the  province  of  Holland 
without  any  public  authority,  and  the  memorials  presented  on  this 
subject  by  Sir  Joseph  Yorke,  the  facts  are  as  follows:  When  that 
Ambassador  had  presented  the  memorial  of  November  10  of  last  year, 
Their  High  Mightinesses,  passing  over  the  expression  ill  becoming 
communications  between  sovereigns,  of  which  this  memorial  was  full, 
lost  no  time  in  giving  the  matter  serious  consideration,  and  by  their 
resolution  of  the  27th  of  the  same  month  they  did  not  hesitate  to  dis- 
avow and  disapprove  publicly  all  that  had  been  done  in  this  respect; 
whereupon  they  had  every  reason  to  expect  that  His  Britannic  Majesty 
would  acquiesce  in  this  declaration,  since  he  could  not  be  unaware  of 
the  fact  that  Their  High  Mightinesses  have  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
respective  Provinces,  and  that  this  question  had  to  be  referred  to  the 
States  of  the  Province  of  Holland,  vested  like  the  States  of  the  other 
Provinces  with  exclusive  authority  over  their  subjects.  Their  High 
Mightinesses,  however,  had  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  States  of  the 
said  Province  would  take  action  in  accordance  with  the  exigencies  of 
the  case  and  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  State  and  the  rules  of 
equity.  Therefore  the  assiduity  with  which  Sir  Joseph  Yorke  in- 
sisted, in  a  second  memorial,  on  the  matter  of  punishment  could  not 
but  seem  strange  to  Their  High  Mightinesses,  and  their  surprise  be- 
came still  greater  when  three  days  later  that  Ambassador  declared 


388  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

by  word  of  mouth  to  the  President  of  Their  High  Mightinesses  that, 
if  he  did  not  receive  on  that  very  day  an  entirely  satisfactory  reply 
to  his  memorial,  he  would  be  obliged  to  inform  his  Court  by  special 
courier;  that  Their  High  Mightinesses  have  been  advised  of  this 
declaration,  have  perceived  its  importance  as  plainly  manifesting  the 
course  already  decided  upon  by  his  King's  Council ;  and  although  estab- 
lished custom  does  not  permit  consideration  of  verbal  statements  made 
by  foreign  ministers,  they  saw  fit  to  make  an  exception  in  this  instance 
and  to  direct  their  clerk  to  call  on  Sir  Joseph  Yorke  and  inform  him 
that  his  memorial  had  been  received  ad  referendum  by  the  deputies 
of  the  respective  Provinces,  in  conformity  with  accepted  usages  and 
the  constitution  of  the  Government,  adding  (a  fact  which  appears  to 
have  been  omitted  intentionally  in  the  manifesto)  that  they  would 
endeavor  to  have  a  reply  to  his  memorial  sent  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment  and  as  soon  as  the  constitution  would  permit.  A  few  days 
later  the  deputies  of  Holland  notified  the  assembly  of  Their  High 
Mightinesses  that  the  States  of  their  Provinces  had  resolved  unani- 
mously to  ask  the  opinion  of  their  court  of  justice  with  regard  to  the 
demand  for  punishment,  charging  the  said  court  to  give  its  opinion  as 
soon  as  possible,  setting  aside  all  other  matters.  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses did  not  fail  to  advise  Sir  Joseph  Yorke  at  once  of  this  resolu- 
tion ;  but  what  was  their  surprise  and  astonishment  when  they  learned 
that  this  Ambassador,  after  having  perused  these  instructions,  had 
sent  a  note  to  the  clerk,  taxing  this  resolution  with  being  evasive  and 
refusing  to  transmit  it  to  his  Court,  thus  compelling  Their  High 
Mightinesses  to  send  the  said  resolution  to  Count  van  Welderen,  their 
Minister  at  London,  with  instructions  to  transmit  it  as  soon  as  possible 
to  the  Ministry  of  His  Britannic  Majesty ;  but  the  refusal  of  that  Min- 
istry prevented  the  carrying  out  of  these  instructions. 

From  this  statement  of  all  the  circumstances  in  this  matter,  the  im- 
partial public  will  be  in  a  position  to  pass  judgment  on  the  principal 
reason  or  rather  pretext  advanced  by  His  Britannic  Majesty  for  un- 
bridling his  designs  against  the  Republic.  The  matter  may  be  summed 
up  as  follows:  His  Majesty  was  informed  of  negotiations,  which  are 
said  to  have  taken  place  in  1778  between  a  member  of  the  Government 
of  one  of  the  Provinces  and  a  representative  of  the  American  Con- 
gress, the  object  of  which  negotiations  was  the  drafting  of  a  treaty  of 
commerce  to  be  concluded  between  the  Republic  and  the  said  Colonies 
casu  quo,  to  wit,  in  case  the  independence  of  these  Colonies  should  be 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  389 

recognized  by  the  Crown  of  England.  These  negotiations,  although 
conditional  and  contingent  upon  a  condition  depending  upon  a  future 
act  of  His  Majesty  himself,  these  negotiations,  which  without  this 
future  act  or  declaration,  would  have  no  effect  whatever,  were  taken 
in  such  bad  part  by  His  Majesty  and  seemed  to  arouse  his  displeasure 
to  such  a  degree  that  he  saw  fit  to  demand  of  the  State  public  dis- 
avowal and  disapproval,  as  well  as  punishment  and  complete  satis- 
faction. Their  High  Mightinesses  immediately  and  without  the 
slightest  delay  granted  the  first  part  of  the  request,  but  the  punish- 
ment demanded  was  not  within  their  jurisdiction,  and  they  could  not 
comply  with  the  request  in  this  respect  without  contravening  the  fun- 
damental constitution  of  the  State.  The  States  of  the  Province  of 
Holland  alone  had  legal  jurisdiction  in  the  matter,  and  they  alone  could 
take  action  through  the  ordinary  and  regular  channels.  This  sovereign, 
ever  holding  fast  to  those  maxims  which  compel  respect  for  the  author- 
ity of  the  law,  and  fully  convinced  that  the  maintenance  of  the  de- 
partment of  justice  in  the  integrity  and  impartiality  which  are  insepa- 
rable therefrom,  must  form  one  of  the  strongest  supports  of  supreme 
power;  this  sovereign,  bound  by  all  that  is  most  sacred  to  defend  and 
to  protect  the  rights  and  privileges  of  its  subjects,  could  not  so  far 
forget  itself  as  to  subscribe  to  the  will  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  by 
attacking  these  rights  and  privileges  and  by  forcing  the  bars  set  by 
the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Government.  These  laws  required  the 
intervention  of  the  judicial  department,  and  the  aforesaid  States  re- 
solved to  follow  the  prescribed  course  by  asking  the  opinion  of  the 
court  of  justice  established  in  their  Province.  It  has  been  by  following 
this  course  that  they  have  developed  in  the  sight  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty,  of  the  English  nation,  and  of  all  Europe,  the  unalterable 
principles  of  justice  and  equity  which  characterize  the  Batavian  con- 
stitution and  which  in  so  important  a  branch  of  the  public  administra- 
tion as  that  regarding  the  exercise  of  judicial  power  must  always  be  a 
shield  and  a  bulwark  against  everything  that  may  jeopardize  the  se- 
curity and  independence  of  a  free  nation.  It  was  also  by  this  means 
and  by  following  this  course  that,  far  from  closing  the  way  to  justice 
or  evading  the  demand  for  punishment,  the  road  was,  on  the  contrary, 
left  open  for  the  regular  procedure,  in  conformity  with  the  constitu- 
tional principles  of  the  Republic.  And,  finally,  it  was  by  depriving  the 
Court  of  London  of  any  pretext  for  complaining  of  a  denial  of  jus- 
tice that  they  prevented  the  least  shadow  or  semblance  of  a  reason 


390  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

which  might  have  justified  that  Court  in  making  reprisals,  to  which, 
nevertheless,  it  did  not  scruple  to  resort  in  a  manner  as  odious  as  it 
was  unjust. 

But  while  the  State  was  taking  measures  so  just  and  so  calculated 
to  obviate  all  cause  for  complaint,  the  step  which  marked  the  begin- 
ning of  the  rupture  had  already  been  decided  upon  and  concluded  in 
the  King's  Council.  That  Council  had  resolved  to  try  every  means  of 
thwarting  and  preventing,  if  possible,  the  accession  of  the  Republic  to 
the  convention  between  the  Powers  of  the  north,  and  the  event  has 
clearly  proved  that  it  was  out  of  enmity  toward  that  convention  that 
the  said  Court  has  allowed  itself  to  take  the  action  which  it  has  seen 
fit  to  take  against  the  Republic. 

For  these  reasons  and  since  as  a  result  of  the  repeated  outrages  and 
immense  losses  which  the  subjects  of  the  Republic  have  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses find  themselves  further  provoked  and  assailed  by  His  said 
Majesty  and  forced  to  employ  the  means  which  they  have  at  hand  to 
defend  and  avenge  the  precious  rights  of  their  liberty  and  of  their  in- 
dependence. They  feel  absolutely  confident  that  the  God  of  armies, 
the  God  of  their  fathers,  who  by  the  visible  guidance  of  his  Provi- 
dence sustained  and  delivered  their  Republic  in  the  midst  of  the 
greatest  dangers,  has  blest  the  means  which  they  have  determined  to 
put  into  operation  for  their  legitimate  defense,  crowning  the  right- 
eousness of  their  arms  with  the  every  triumphant  aid  of  His  Almighty 
protection,  while  Their  High  Mightinesses  eagerly  await  the  moment 
when  they  shall  see  the  return  of  their  neighbor  and  ally,  but  now  their 
enemy,  to  moderate  and  equitable  sentiments.  When  that  time  comes, 
Their  High  Mightinesses  shall  take  advantage  of  every  opportunity 
compatible  with  the  honor  and  independence  of  a  free  State,  which 
may  tend  to  reconcile  them  with  their  former  friend  and  ally. 

Done  and  concluded  at  the  assembly  of  Their  High  Mightinesses  the 
Lords  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces  at  The  Hague,  March 
12,  1781. 

Coco  VAN  Haeften 

By  their  order 

H.  Fagel 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  391 

British  Additional  Instruction  to  War-ships  and  Privateers, 
April  20,  178P 

An  additional  instruction  to  all  ships  of  war  and  privateers,  that 
have,  or  may  have  letters  of  marque  against  the  French  King,  the 
King  of  Spain,  or  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces,  their 
vassals  or  subjects,  or  others  inhabiting  within  any  of  their  countries, 
territories,  or  dominions,  or  against  any  other  enemies  or  rebellious 
subjects  of  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  Given  at  our  Court  at  St. 
James's,  the  twentieth  day  of  April,  1781,  in  the  twenty-first  year  of 
our  reign.  [L.  S.] 

Whereas  we  have  ever  been  desirous  to  prevent  interruption  being 
given  to  the  trade  and  commerce  of  every  State  in  amity  with  us,  as 
far  as  was  compatible  with  the  necessary  operations  of  war:  and 
whereas  it  will  tend  very  much  to  that  purpose  that  the  trade  and 
navigation  of  the  Baltic  should  remain  uninterrupted ;  we  have  there- 
fore been  pleased  to  resolve  that  so  long  as  the  trade  of  our  subjects 
shall  continue  to  be  secured  in  those  seas,  our  ships  of  war,  privateers, 
and  other  vessels  acting  under  our  commission,  shall  be  restrained 
from  making  prize  of,  stopping  or  detaining  any  ships  or  vessels  within 
the  Baltic.  And  we  do  hereby  strictly  charge  and  enjoin  the  com- 
manders of  our  ships  of  war,  and  the  commanders  of  all  ships  and 
vessels  having  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  that  they  do  not  by  vir- 
tue of  their  commissions,  or  under  colour  thereof,  stop  or  detain  any 
ship  or  vessels  in  the  Baltic  for  the  purpose  of  making  prize  of  the 
same,  but  that  they  suffer  all  such  ships  and  vessels  as  they  shall  meet 
in  those  seas  to  proceed  in  their  respective  voyages  without  any  in- 
terruption. 

By  His  Majesty's  command, 

Stormont 


Prussian   Declaration  and   Ordinance  concerning   Navigation  and 
Maritime  Commerce,  April  30,  1781- 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  etc.,  in  view  of  the  almost  general 
maritime  war  now  taking  place  in  the  southern  parts  of  Europe,  has 


^Hennings,  vol.  2,  p.   104. 

-Translation.     German  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  284. 


392  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

taken  especial  care  and  measures  to  procure  to  his  subjects  engaged 
in  navigation  and  maritime  commerce  all  possible  security,  and  to  that 
end  has  not  only  requested  all  the  belligerent  Powers  to  issue  to  the 
commanders  of  their  war-ships  and  to  ship-owners  strict  orders  to  have 
the  Prussian  flag  adequately  respected,  but  to  allow  Prussian  ships 
bearing  merchandise  which,  according  to  usage  and  international  law, 
is  free  and  not  to  be  regarded  as  contraband,  to  pass  everywhere  un- 
molested and  unhindered ;  to  prevent  their  being  either  damaged  or 
stopped,  or,  even  less,  taken  to  foreign  ports  without  necessity  and 
authority ;  concerning  which  matters  they  receive  friendly  and  encour- 
aging assurances  from  the  respective  Courts ;  the  said  Courts,  in  order 
better  to  observe  that  object,  have  instructed  their  Ambassadors  resid- 
ing at  the  Courts  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  opportunely  and  energeti- 
cally, by  intercession  and  representation,  to  receive  their  sea-faring 
subjects  whose  ships  might  possibly  be  captured  and  confiscated,  as 
frequently  happens,  or  robbed  at  sea,  so  that  such  ships  may  soon  be 
released  and  compensated,  and  that  legal  action  arising  therefrom  may 
be  decided  and  settled  as  soon  as  possible,  and  with  due  impartiality. 
Now,  in  order  that  the  Royal  Ambassadors  may  properly  attend  to 
these  matters,  the  Royal  Prussian  subjects  who  find  themselves  in 
such  situations  as  described,  must  therefore  address  themselves  in 
person,  or  by  duly  authorized  agent,  to  the  Royal  Ambassador  accred- 
ited to  the  Court  where  the  claim  is  to  be  presented,  and  acquaint 
him  with  the  difficulty  and  all  the  facts  concerning  it,  that  in  the 
proper  place  and  by  his  intercession  he  may  assist  them.  They  must 
not,  however,  rely  solely  upon  such  ministerial  intervention,  but  must 
present  their  complaints  to  the  admiralty  and  maritime  courts  of  the 
country  to  which  their  ship  is  taken,  or  where  they  sustained  injur}^ 
and  with  the  required  proofs,  legally  prosecute  their  complaints  through 
the  various  courts  established  in  the  country,  through  authorized 
agents  or  advocates,  in  which  case,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  they  shall  receive 
good  legal  assistance,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  assistance  they  can 
address  themselves  to  the  Royal  Ambassadors,  in  order,  if  necessary, 
to  present  proper  complaint  at  every  Court,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances, and  to  bring  about  their  redress. 

However,  in  order  still  further  to  secure  the  navigation  of  the 
Prussian  subjects.  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  has  had  the 
request  presented  through  his  Ambassadors,  to  Her  Majesty  the  Em- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  393 

press  of  all  the  Russias  and  both  the  other  two  northern  maritime 
Powers,  which  three  Courts,  as  is  well  known,  have  allied  themselves 
in  defense  of  maritime  neutrality :  that  they,  as  Powers  with  which 
His  Majesty  is  living  in  truest  friendship,  instruct  the  commanders  ox 
their  war-ships,  to  take  under  their  protection  and  convoy,  such  Prus- 
sian merchant  ships  which  they  may  meet  on  the  sea,  as  long  as  they 
remain  within  their  sight  and  cannon  range,  in  case  such  ships  should 
be  captured  or  molested  by  the  war-ships  and  ship-owners  of  the 
belligerent  Powers.  Through  a  written  declaration  for  her  Minis- 
try, Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  has  given  assurances  to 
His  Majesty,  as  her  confederate  ally ;  that  the  commanders  of  her 
war-ships  had  not  only  been  ordered  to  protect  against  molestation 
and  attack  the  ships  of  Prussian  merchants  and  mariners  as  belonging 
to  a  Power  allied  with  her,  and  to  observe  most  strictly  the  rules  of 
neutrality  as  established  in  international  law,  in  case  they  should 
encounter  such  ships,  but  that  her  Ambassadors  accredited  to  the  Courts 
of  the  belligerent  Powers  would  be  instructed  that,  as  often  as  the 
Royal  Prussian  Ambassadors  had  cause  to  present  claims  and  coni- 
plaints  to  these  Courts  because  of  obstructions  to  commercial  naviga- 
tion of  Prussian  subjects,  the  Ambassadors  should  support  them 
through  their  intervention,  in  the  name  of  Her  Russian  Imperial 
Majesty;  that  in  return,  ?Ier  Majesty  expected  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Prussia  to  impart  similar  instructions  to  his  Ambassadors  at  the 
Courts  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  conformably  to  the  maritime  con- 
vention of  the  northern  maritime  Powers,  and  to  support  in  all  cases 
by  emphatic  intervention  the  representations  of  the  Ambassadors  of 
the  northern  Powers  allied  in  behalf  of  maritime  neutrality,  in  case 
they  had  cause  to  demand  satisfaction  for  the  subjects  of  their 
sovereigns. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  has  received  with  obliging  grati- 
tude this  friendly  declaration  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and  made  a 
corresponding  declaration,  instructing  his  Ambassadors  at  foreign 
Courts  accordingly.  On  the  occasion  of  other  maritime  negotiations. 
His  Majesty  had  already  requested  the  Royal  Court  of  Denmark  to 
extend  to  Prussian  merchant  ships  the  protection  of  the  Danish 
maritime  Power,  and  in  answer  thereto,  had  received  the  friendly 
assurance  that  the  Royal  Danish  war-ships  would  take  all  Prussian 
merchant  ships  under  their  protection,  provided  that  these  ships  would 
conform  to  maritime  treaties  entered  into  between  the  Danish  Crown 


394  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  other  Powers.  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  has  made  a 
similar  request  of  the  Royal  Swedish  Court,  and  from  the  friendship 
of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  expects  to  receive  such  assurances 
as  have  been  received  from  the  Empress  of  Russia  and  from  the  King 
of  Denmark. 

Therefore,  all  these  circumstances  are  herewith  announced  to  all 
royal  subjects  who  engage  in  sea-faring  and  in  maritime  commerce, 
so  that  they  and  the  ship  captains  may  act  conformably  thereto ;  and 
in  cases  of  necessity,  should  they  be  attacked,  molested  or  captured 
on  the  sea  by  the  war-ships  and  ship-owners  of  the  belligerent  nations, 
they  may  address  themselves  to  such  Russian  Imperial,  Royal  Danish 
or  Royal  Swedish  war-ships,  as  may  be  cruising  near-by,  ask  for  their 
protection  and  assistance,  and  as  far  as  possible  keep  in  touch  with 
the  fleets  and  convoys  of  these  three  northern  maritime  Powers. 

In  view  of  the  fact,  however,  that  it  is  merely  the  intention  of  His 
Majesty  the  King,  by  the  above-mentioned  measures  to  safeguard  the 
lawful  and  innocent  maritime  commerce  of  his  subjects,  and  in  no 
way  to  injure  the  high  Powers  which  are  waging  war  among  them- 
selves and  with  which  His  Majesty  is  living  in  friendship,  nor  to 
favor  any  trade  which  might  be  injurious  to  them  or  imlawful,  there- 
fore, all  royal  subjects  engaging  in  maritime  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion, shall  so  organize  their  commerce  and  navigation  that  they  will 
observe  a  strict  neutrality,  in  accordance  with  natural  law  or  the 
generally  accepted  rights  of  nations.  But,  as  there  is  a  difference 
between  the  different  treaties  which  one  and  other  Courts  have  entered 
into,  therefore  the  royal  Prussian  subjects  shall  preferably  conform 
themselves  to  the  well-known  declaration  made  by  Her  Imperial  Maj- 
esty of  all  the  Russias  during  the  preceding  year  to  the  belligerent 
Powers,  and  to  the  ordinance  issued  by  Her  Majesty,  May  8,  1760,  to 
her  Board  of  Trade,  which  His  Majesty  regards  as  most  conform- 
able to  the  law  of  nations  and  to  their  own  rights,  and  carry  on  their 
maritime  trade  in  accordance  therewith.  In  consequence,  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Prussia  hereby  commands  all  his  subjects  who  engage 
in  navigation  and  maritime  trade: 

Article  1 

That  they  shall  not  take  part  in  the  present  war  under  any  pretext 
nor,  under  the  Prussian  flag,  supply  the  belligerent  Powers  with  any 
merchandise  which  is  generally  regarded  as  contraband  and  forbidden. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  395 

or  with  real  war  necessities  such  as  cannon,  mortars,  bombs,  grenades, 
guns,  pistols,  bullets,  flint-stones,  fuses,  powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur, 
pikes,  swords  and  saddles.  Of  such  they  shall  not  carry  more  on 
their  merchant  ships  than  required  for  their  own  use. 

Article  2 

Prussian  navigators  may,  in  Prussian  ships,  carry  to  the  belligerent 
and  neutral  nations  all  other  goods  which,  apart  from  those  indicated 
in  the  preceding  article,  are  not  forbidden  nor  real  war  necessities, 
especially  the  products  of  any  royal  province;  and  His  Majesty  ex- 
pects from  the  sense  of  justice  and  of  friendship  of  the  belligerent 
Powers  that  they  v/ill  not  permit  their  armed  ships  to  molest  or  to 
seize  Prussian  ships  carrying  masts,  timber,  hemp,  tar,  corn  and  other 
like  articles,  not  real  war  necessities,  but  which  may  subsequently  be 
used  to  such  ends,  and  which  constitute  the  foremost  and  almost  the 
only  articles  of  Prussian  trade ;  otherwise,  Prussian  maritime  com- 
merce would  be  destroyed ;  and  His  Majesty  can  not  be  expected  to 
consent  that  the  said  commerce  be  stopped  or  allowed  to  stagnate 
because  of  the  war  between  the  belligerents.  On  the  ground  of  these 
same  principles  it  is  hoped  that  the  belligerent  Powers  will  let  pass 
free  and  unhindered,  that  they  will  not  appropriate  and  seize,  nor  con- 
fiscate the  unprohibited  merchandise  and  cargoes  of  Prussian  subjects 
which  might  be  found  aboard  the  ships  of  the  belligerent  nations,  nor 
the  unprohibited  merchandise  of  the  belligerent  nations  which  is  on 
board  Prussian  ships,  and  in  all  such  cases  His  Majesty  will  as  far  as 
possible  protect  his  subjects,  will  personally  see  to  it  and  cautiously  act 
to  the  end  that  their  merchandise  and  cargoes  be  shipped  on  Prussian 
ships  under  the  Prussian  flag,  and  not  to  engage  to  a  large  extent  in 
the  transportation  of  merchandise  and  goods  belonging  to  the  bellig- 
erent nations,  and  to  guard  against  all  possible  misunderstandings  and 
mishaps,  especially  to  carry  on  a  purely  legitimate  Prussian  maritime 
trade. 

Article  3 

All  Prussian  ships  sailing  on  the  sea  must  provide  themselves  with 
regular  passes  and  attestations  from  the  boards  of  the  admiralty,  of 
the  war  and  of  the  authorities  of  each  province,  or  from  the  magis- 
trates of  each  locality,  in  the  customary  way,  as  well  as  with  the  usual 
charter  document,   bill   of   lading  and   other   certificates   which   must 


396  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  ISCO 

state  the  quality  and  quantity  of  the  cargo,  the  name  of  the  owner  and 
consignee  together  with  that  of  its  destination.  These  maritime  docu- 
ments must  be  clear  and  unequivocal,  must  be  at  all  times  on  board  of 
each  ship,  and  under  no  circumstances  ever  be  thrown  overboard ;  and 
especially,  every  skipper  must  guard  against   false  maritime  papers. 

Article  4 

If  loaded  in  a  foreign  port,  every  Prussian  ship  must  there  provide 
itself  with  the  required  and  customary  local  maritime  papers,  in  order 
to  prove  its  identity  everywhere,  to  what  nation  it  belongs,  the  cargo 
it  carries,  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it  is  bound. 

Article  5 

There  shall  be  no  naval  officers  or  employees  on  board  Prussian 
ships,  nor  shall  more  than  one-third  of  the  sailors  belong  to  the  bellig- 
erent nations. 

Article  6 

All  Prussian  navigators  are  hereby  forbidden  to  carry  cargoes  and 
merchandise  of  whatever  nature,  to  such  localities  and  parts  as  are 
really  besieged,  or  closely  blockaded  and  closed  by  one  of  the  bellig- 
erent Powers. 

Article  13 

Prussian  subjects,  mariners  and  merchants  shall  not  lend  their 
names  to  foreign  nations,  but  shall  carry  on  their  commerce  as  is 
permissible  in  accordance  with  the  rights  and  customs  of  the  peoples, 
in  such  manner  as  not  to  cause  injury  to  any  one  of  the  belligerent 
nations,  nor  to  give  cause  to  any  one  of  the  belligerent  nations  to  enter 
a  rightful  complaint. 

Those  royal  subjects  who  conform  themselves  strictly  to  this  ordi- 
nance may  expect  all  possible  protection  and  assistance  from  His 
Royal  Majesty;  those,  however,  who  act  against  this  ordinance  may 
not  expect  such  protection  and  assistance,  but  must  remain  personally 
responsible  for  all  danger  and  loss  they  might  incur  in  so  acting. 

Given  at  Berlin,  April  30,  1781. 

By  special  command  of  His  Majesty  the  King. 

E.  F.  V.  Herzberg 
Finkenstein 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  397 

Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  Maintenance  of  the 
Freedom  of  Neutral  Commerce  and  Navigation,  by  which 
Prussia  accedes  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  May  19, 
178P 

The  justice  and  equity  of  principles  which  Her  Majesty  the  Empress 
of  all  the  Russias  adopted  and  acknowledged  before  Europe  by  her 
declaration  of  February  28,  1780,-  transmitted  to  all  the  belligerent 
Powers,  have  determined  His  Alajesty  the  King  of  Prussia  to  take 
part  as  directly  as  possible  in  the  glorious  system  of  neutrality  which 
has  resulted  therefrom,  with  the  universal  commendation  of  all  the 
nations,  not  only  by  acknowledging  these  principles  which  are  founded 
on  justice  and  the  law  of  nations,  but  also  by  acceding  thereto  and  by 
guaranteeing  them  by  a  formal  act.  This  determination  of  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty  meeting  entirely  with  the  desire  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
of  all  the  Russias  to  give  them  a  stable  and  solid  basis  by  having  them 
solemnly  recognized  by  all  the  Powers  as  the  only  principles  capable 
of  establishing  security  of  commerce  and  of  navigation  for  neutral 
nations  in  general,  Their  Majesties  have  seen  fit  with  one  accord  to 
enter  into  negotiations  regarding  a  subject  in  which  they  are  both 
equally  interested,  in  so  far  as  it  can  work  to  the  welfare  and  advantage 
of  their  respective  subjects,  and  to  this  end  they  have  chosen,  appointed, 
and  authorized,  to  wit:  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  the  Count 
von  Goertz,  his  Minister  of  State,  and  his  Minister  Extraordinary  at 
the  Imperial  Court  of  Russia;  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias,  Nikita  Count  Panin,  her  Privy  Councilor,  Senator,  Chamber- 
lain, and  Chevalier  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Andrew,  of  St,  Alexander- 
Newsky,  and  of  St.  Anne ;  John  Count  d'Ostermann,  her  Vice  Chancel- 
lor, Privy  Councilor,  and  Chevalier  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Alexander- 
Newsky  and  of  St.  Anne;  Alexander  de  Besborodka,  Major  General  of 
her  Armies  and  Colonel  commanding  the  Kiovia  Regiment  of  Militia 
of  Little  Russia;  and  Pierre  de  Bacounin,  her  Councilor  of  State, 
Member  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Chevalier  of  the 
Order  of  St.  Anne ;  who  having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  found 
to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

Their  Majesties,  being  sincerely  resolved  to  maintain  relations  of 
friendship  and  of  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  the  Powers  now  at 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  659. 
^Antc,  p.  273. 


398  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

war  and  to  continue  to  observe  the  strictest  and  the  most  scrupulous 
neutrality,  declare  their  desire  to  see  to  the  most  rigorous  execution 
of  the  prohibition  of  commerce  in  contraband  by  their  subjects,  with 
any  of  the  Powers  now  at  war  or  which  may  hereafter  enter  into  the 
war. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  any  ambiguity  and  any  misunderstanding  regarding  what 
is  to  be  considered  contraband.  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the 
Russias  has  declared  that  she  recognizes  as  such  only  the  goods  in- 
cluded under  this  head  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  her  treaty  of  commerce 
with  Great  Britain,^  whose  obligations,  which  are  founded  entirely  on 
the  natural  law,  she  has  extended  to  the  Crowns  of  France  and  Spain, 
which  countries  have  not  heretofore  bound  themselves  with  her  Empire 
by  any  engagement  relating  purely  to  commerce.  Since  there  likewise 
exists  no  engagement  of  this  nature  between  His  Prussian  Majesty 
and  the  Powers  now  at  war,  he  declares  for  his  part,  that,  in  this 
respect,  he  also  desires  to  bind  himself  with  them  by  the  obligations 
of  the  aforesaid  treaty  of  commerce  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain, 
with  specific  reference  to  Articles  10  and  11  of  that  treaty. 

Article  3 

Contraband  determined  and  excluded  from  commerce,  in  conform- 
ity with  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  aforesaid  treaty  concluded  between 
Russia  and  Great  Britain  on  June  20,  1766,  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Prussia  and  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  understand  and 
desire  that  all  other  trade  be  and  remain  absolutely  free  on  the  basis 
of  the  general  principles  of  the  natural  law,  which  Her  Majesty  the 
Empress  has  solemnly  demanded,  and  of  which  freedom  of  commerce 
and  of  navigation,  as  well  as  the  rights  of  neutral  peoples,  is  a  direct 
consequence ;  and  in  order  that  they  may  not  depend  upon  an  arbitrary 
interpretation,  suggested  by  isolated  and  temporary  interests,  Her 
Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  has  adopted  and  established  as  a 
basis  the  four  following  points : 

(1)  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 


^  Treaty  of  June  20,  1766,  ante,  p.  342. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  399 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonginc^  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at 
war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of 
contraband  merchandise. 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  sta  ■ 
tioned  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access 
thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  be  detained  only  for  just  cause  and 
when  the  facts  are  perfectly  evident;  that  they  shall  be  adjudged  with- 
out delay ;  that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and 
legal ;  and  that,  in  addition  to  the  compensation  granted  to  vessels 
which  have  suffered  loss  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  in  each  case  be  rendered  for  the  insult  to  the  flag. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  accedes  to  these  principles,  adopts 
them  also,  and  guarantees  them  in  the  most  positive  manner,  binding 
himself  to  uphold  them  and  demand  their  observance  whenever  the 
interests  of  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the  subjects  of  the  two 
high  contracting  Parties  may  so  require. 

Article  4 

In  return  for  this  accession  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the 
Russias  will  continue  to  protect  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the 
Prussians  with  her  fleets,  as  she  has  already  agreed  to  do  at  the 
request  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  having  had  orders  sent 
to  all  the  commanding  officers  of  her  squadrons  to  protect  and  defend 
against  all  insults  and  molestation  the  merchant  ships  of  Russia,  which 
happen  to  be  in  their  course,  as  being  the  vessels  of  a  friendly  and 
allied  Power  that  strictly  observes  neutrality,  it  being  understood, 
however,  that  the  aforesaid  vessels  shall  not  be  used  for  any  illicit 
commerce,  or  for  any  purpose  that  is  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the 
strictest  and  most  scrupulous  neutrality. 

Article  5 

If  it  should  happen,  in  spite  of  the  greatest  care  on  the  part  of  the 
two  contracting  Powers  for  the  observance  by  them  of  the  most 
complete  neutrality,  that  the  merchant  vessels  of  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Prussia  and  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  should  be 
insulted,  pillaged,  or  taken  by  the  war-ships  or  private  ship-owners 


400  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  any  of  the  Powers  at  war,  then  the  Minister  of  the  injured  party 
at  the  Court,  whose  war-ships  or  private  ship-owners  shall  have  com- 
mitted such  acts,  shall  make  representations,  shall  make  claim  for 
the  captured  merchant  vessel,  and  shall  insist  upon  suitable  indemnities, 
never  losing  sight  of  reparation  for  the  insult  to  the  flag.  The  Minister 
of  the  other  contracting  Party  shall  join  with  him  and  support  his 
complaint  in  the  most  energetic  and  efficacious  manner,  and  they  will 
thus  act  with  one  accord.  If  justice  should  be  refused,  or  if  it  should 
be  postponed  from  time  to  time,  then  Their  Majesties  shall  employ 
reprisals  against  the  Power  so  refusing  and  they  shall  continually 
consult  with  each  other  as  to  the  most  appropriate  method  for  carry- 
ing out  such  reprisals. 

Article  6 

If  it  should  happen  that  either  of  the  two  contracting  Powers  or 
both  of  them,  because  of  or  in  contempt  of  the  present  act,  or  for 
any  other  cause  relating  thereto,  should  be  disturbed,  molested,  or 
attacked,  it  has  been  likewise  agreed  that  the  two  Powers  shall  make 
common  cause  for  their  mutual  defense,  and  shall  work  and  act  in 
concert  in  order  to  secure  entire  and  full  satisfaction,  both  for  the 
insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the  losses  caused  to  their  subjects. 

Article  7 

The  present  act  shall  have  no  retroactive  effect,  and  therefore  no 
action  shall  be  taken  with  respect  to  differences  that  have  arisen  before 
its  conclusion,  unless  it  is  a  question  of  continuous  acts  of  violence, 
tending  to  establish  an  oppressive  system  for  all  the  neutral  countries 
of  Europe  in  general. 

Article  8 

All  the  stipulations  set  forth  in  the  present  act  must  be  regarded 
as  permanent  and  as  constituting  the  law  in  the  matter  of  commerce 
and  of  navigation,  and  whenever  there  is  occasion  to  determine  the 
rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  9 

The  principal  aim  and  object  of  this  act  being  to  ensure  general 
freedom  of  commerce  and  of  navigation,  His  Prussian  Majesty  and 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  401 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  agree  and  engage  in  advance 
to  allow  other  neutral  Powers  to  accede  hereto,  which  by  adopting  the 
principles  herein  contained  shall  share  its  obligations  as  well  as  its 
advantages. 

Article  10 

In  order  that  the  Powers  at  war  may  not  allege  their  ignorance  of 
the  engagements  undertaken  by  Their  said  Majesties,  they  shall  com- 
municate in  a  friendly  way  to  the  said  Powers  these  engagements, 
which  are  in  nowise  hostile  to  them  nor  to  the  detriment  of  any  one 
of  them,  but  aim  solely  to  ensure  security  of  commerce  and  of  naviga- 
tion to  their  respective  subjects. 

Article  11 

The  present  act  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting  Parties,  and 
the  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  within  six  weeks  from  the 
day  of  the  signing  thereof,  or  sooner  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof  we,  the  plenipotentiaries,    by  virtue  of  our  full 
powers  have  signed  and  have  hereto  affixed  the  seals  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  May  8,  1781. ^ 

[L.S.]     E.  Count  von  Goertz 
[L.S.I     C.  N.  Panin 
[L.S.]     C.  John  d'Ostermann 
[L.S.]     Alexander  de  Besborodka 
[L.S.]     Pierre  de  Bacounin 

Separate  Articles 
Article  1 

As  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  and  Her  Majesty  the  Empress 
of  all  the  Russias  are  equally  interested  in  preserving  the  security 
and  tranquillity  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  in  protecting  it  from  the  dis- 
turbances of  war  and  privateering,  a  system  the  more  just  and  natural 
because  the  Powers  whose  States  border  thereon  enjoy  the  most  pro- 
found peace.  They  have  mutually  agreed  to  maintain  that  it  is  a 
closed  sea,  incontestably  such  by  its  geographical  situation,  in  which 
all  nations  must  and  may  navigate  in  peace  and  enjoy  all  the  advan- 


iMay  19,  1781,  new  style. 


402  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tages  of  perfect  tranquillity,  and  to  this  end  to  adopt  among  themselves 
measures  capable  of  guaranteeing  this  sea  and  its  coasts  against  all 
hostilities,  piracies,  and  acts  of  violence. 

Article  2 

Since  stress  of  weather  or  some  other  circumstance  may  force  Rus- 
sian vessels  to  take  refuge  in  a  Prussian  port,  either  to  pass  the  winter, 
to  make  repairs,  or  to  escape  the  storm.  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Prussia  engages  to  see  to  it  that  they  are  received  and  treated  as  ves- 
sels of  a  friendly  and  closely  allied  Power,  and  that  they  are  furnished, 
at  a  just  and  reasonable  price,  with  the  necessary  materials  for  repairs 
and  with  the  provisions  needed  by  the  crew  for  its  sustenance ;  in  a 
word,  to  see  that  all  necessary  arrangements  are  made  in  order  that 
these  vessels  and  their  crews  may  be  treated  and  cared  for  in  the  most 
friendly  manner. 

Article  3 

At  the  more  or  less  remote  time  when  peace  shall  be  restored  between 
the  belligerent  Powers,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  and  Her 
Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  shall  use  their  best  efforts  with 
the  maritime  Powers  in  general  to  bring  about  the  universal  acceptance 
and  recognition  in  all  naval  wars,  which  may  arise  hereafter,  of  the 
system  of  neutrality  and  the  principles  established  in  the  present  act, 
forming  the  basis  of  a  universal  maritime  code. 

Article  4 

As  soon  as  this  act  shall  have  been  ratified  and  the  exchange  of 
ratifications  shall  have  taken  place,  the  high  contracting  Powers  shall 
take  care  to  communicate  it,  with  the  exception  of  the  separate  articles, 
in  good  faith,  conjointly  and  with  one  accord,  through  their  Ministers 
accredited  to  foreign  Courts,  and  specifically  those  Courts  which  are 
now  at  war. 

These  separate  articles  shall  be  considered  and  regarded  as  forming 
a  part  of  the  act  itself  and  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  as 
though  they  had  been  inserted  word  for  word  in  the  said  act,  concluded 
the  same  day  between  the  two  high  contracting  Parties.  They  shall 
be  ratified  in  the  same  way  and  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged 
at  the  same  time. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  403 

In   faith  whereof   we,   the  plenipotentiaries,   by   virtue  of  our   full 
powers,  have  signed  them  and  have  affixed  thereto  the  seals  of  our  arms. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  May  8,  1781.^ 

[L.S.]     Count  von  Goertz 
[L.S.]     C.  N.  Panin 
[L.S.]     C.  John  d'Ostermann 
[L.S.]     Alexander  de  Besborodka 
[L.S.]     Pierre  de  Bacounin 


Act  of  Accession  of  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  to  the  System  of 
Armed  Neutrality,  October  9,  1781- 

Joseph  II,  by  the  grace  of  God  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  ever  August, 
King  of  Germany  and  of  Jerusalem,  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia,  of 
Dalmatia,  Croatia,  Slavonia  and  Galicia,  and  of  Lodomeria,  Archduke 
of  Austria,  Duke  of  Burgundy  and  of  Lorraine,  Grand  Duke  of  Tus- 
cany, Grand  Prince  of  Transylvania,  Duke  of  Milan,  of  Mantua,  of 
Parma,  and  Count  of  Hapsburg,  of  Flanders,  of  Tyrol,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. ; 

Having  been  amicably  invited  by  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all 
the  Russias  to  join  with  her  in  the  consolidation  of  the  principles  of 


iMay  19,  1781,  new  style. 

^Translation.  For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  665.  G.  F.  Martens  prints 
at  p.  252  of  vol.  3  of  his  Recueil  (2d  ed.)  a  treaty  in  the  Italian  language  be- 
tween the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  and  the  Empress  of  Russia  dated  at  Vienna, 
July  10,  1781,  giving  as  his  source  Vita  c  fasti  di  Giuseppe  II,  vol.  2,  p.  33,  and 
remarking  in  a  footnote :  "This  work  is  the  only  one  where  I  find  a  copy  of 
this  treaty,  of  which  no  mention  is  made  either  in  the  act  of  accession  and  ac- 
ceptance [post,  406]  or  in  any  other  work  that  has  come  into  my  hands.  The 
Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality  makes  no  mention  of  it.  .  .  .  The 
author  of  the  Vita  e  fasti,  who  is  not  very  exact  in  the  copies  of  treaties  that 
he  has  inserted,  has  omitted  the  signatures.  I  should  have  liked  to  compare 
them  with  what  the  author  of  the  Secret  History  relates  at  p.  46  on  the  subject 
of  the  signatures  and  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  acts  of  accession  and 
acceptance  between  the  two  Imperial  Courts."  An  English  translation  of  this 
document  may  be  found  at  p.  119  of  Pamphlet  No.  27  of  the  Division  of  Inter- 
national Law  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace. 

Fedor  Martens,  the  Russian  publicist  and  editor  of  the  Recueil  de  Traites  et 
Conventions  conclus  par  la  Riissie  avcc  les  Puissances  etrangeres  says  in  a  foot- 
note on  p.  122  of  vol.  2  of  that  compilation,  that  this  convention  of  July  10,  1781, 
must  be  considered  as  apocryphal  as  no  copies  thereof  are  to  be  found  either  in 
the  Russian  archives  or  the  archives  of  Austria  and  as,  moreover,  the  reports  of 
the  envoys  bear  no  trace  of  any  diplomatic  negotiations  whatever  bearing  on  it. 


404  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

neutrality  on  the  sea,  looking  to  the  maintenance  of  the  freedom  of 
maritime  commerce  and  of  the  navigation  of  neutral  Powers,  which 
she  has  set  forth  in  her  declaration  of  February  28,  1780,^  transmitted 
in  her  name  to  the  belligerent  Powers,  which  principles  are  in  substance : 

That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war  shall 
be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband 
merchandise. 

That  nothing  shall  be  considered  contraband  except  the  merchandise 
enumerated  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded 
between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  on  June  20,  1766.- 

That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  designation 
shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed  its 
vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access  thereto 
clearly  dangerous. 

Finally,  that  these  principles  shall  serve  as  the  rule  in  proceedings 
and  judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

And  Her  said  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  having  proposed 
to  us  to  this  end  that  we  manifest  by  a  formal  act  of  accession,  not 
only  our  complete  adhesion  to  these  same  principles,  but  also  our 
immediate  cooperation  in  measures  to  ensure  their  execution,  which 
we,  on  our  part,  shall  adopt  by  contracting  mutually  with  Her  said 
Majesty  the  following  engagements  and  stipulations,  to  wit: 

(1)  That  the  strictest  neutrality  shall  be  observed  by  both,  that  the 
prohibitions  against  commerce  in  contraband  on  the  part  of  their 
respective  subjects  with  any  one  of  the  Powers  now  at  war,  or  who 
may  hereafter  enter  the  war,  shall  be  most  rigorously  enforced. 

(2)  That  if,  in  spite  of  all  the  care  exercised  to  this  end,  the 
merchant  ships  of  either  of  the  two  Powers  should  be  taken  or  insulted 
by  any  of  the  vessels  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  the  complaints  of  the 
injured  Power  shall  be  supported  in  the  most  effectual  manner  by  the 
other,  and  if  justice  should  be  refused  upon  these  complaints,  they  shall 
continue  to  take  counsel  with  each  other  as  to  the  method  most  likely 
to  secure  it  through  just  reprisals. 

(3)  That  if  it  should  happen  that  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both 
of  them,  as  a  result  of  or  in  contempt  of  the  present  agreement,  should 


^Ante,  p.  273. 
-Ante,  p.  342. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  405 

be  disturbed,  molested,  or  attacked,  they  would  then  make  common 
cause  for  their  mutual  defense  and  would  work  in  concert  to  secure 
full  and  complete  satisfaction,  both  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for 
the  losses  caused  to  their  subjects. 

(4)  That  these  stipulations  shall  be  considered  by  both  as  permanent 
and  as  being  the  rule  whenever  there  may  be  occasion  to  pass  upon  the 
rights  of  neutrality. 

(5)  That  the  two  Powers  shall  communicate  in  a  friendly  way  their 
present  mutual  agreement  to  all  the  Powers  that  are  now  at  war. 

Since  it  is  our  wish,  because  of  the  sincere  friendship  which  happily 
unites  us  with  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  as  well 
as  for  the  welfare  of  Europe  in  general  and  of  our  countries  and 
subjects  in  particular,  to  contribute  our  share  to  the  execution  of 
views,  principles,  and  measures,  which  are  as  salutary  as  they  are  in 
accord  with  the  clearest  conceptions  of  the  law  of  nations,  have  resolved 
to  accede  thereto,  and  we  accede  formally  by  virtue  of  the  present  act, 
promising  and  binding  ourselves,  just  as  Her  Majesty  the  Empress 
of  all  the  Russias  binds  herself  with  respect  to  us,  to  observe,  to  execute 
and  to  guarantee  all  the  points  and  stipulations  aforesaid. 

In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  the  present  act  with  our  own  hand 
and  have  affixed  thereto  our  seal. 

Given  at  Vienna,  October  9,  1781. 

[L.S.]     JOSEPH 

Kaunitz-Rietberg 

Ant.  Spielmann 


Act  signed  by  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  concerning  the  Adoption 
of  the  Principles  of  the  Armed  Neutrality  as  Universal  Rules 
for  the  Conduct  of  Naval  War,  October  9,  178P 

Joseph  II,  by  the  grace  of  God  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  ever 
August,  King  of  Germany  and  of  Jerusalem,  of  Hungary,  of  Bohemia, 
of  Dalmatia,  of  Croatia,  of  Esclavonia,  of  Galicia,  and  of  Lodomeria, 
Archduke  of  Austria,  Duke  of  Burgundy  and  of  Lorraine,  Grand  Duke 


^Translation.     French  text,  F.  Martens,  Traites  ct  Conventions  conclus  par  la 
Russic,  vol.  2,  p.  125. 


406  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  Tuscany,  Grand  Prince  of  Transylvania,  Duke  of  Milan,  of  Mantua, 
of  Parma,  etc.,  Count  of  Plapsburg,  of  Flanders,  of  Tyrol,  etc.,  etc. 

As  the  desire  to  see  the  restoration  of  tranquillity  in  Europe,  which 
animates  us  together  with  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias,  has  led  us  to  unite  our  efforts  with  those  of  Her  said  Imperial 
Majesty  to  hasten  so  salutary  an  event,  and  as  we  have  to  this  end,  in 
concert  with  her,  offered  our  mediation,  which  has  been  equally  ac- 
cepted by  the  belligerent  Powers :  we  have,  moreover,  mutually  agreed 
to  work  in  concert,  when  peace  shall  have  been  restored,  to  secure  the 
permanent  establishment  of  the  principles  on  the  rights  of  neutrality, 
which  are  the  subject  of  the  public  act  of  accession  which  we  have  this 
day  signed. 

Therefore  we  propose,  and  we  bind  ourselves  by  the  present  act 
with  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias,  who  for  her  part 
promises  and  binds  herself  with  us,  to  take  up  conjointly  and  in  the 
most  effectual  manner  with  the  naval  Powers  in  general  the  question 
of  having  the  said  principles  accepted  and  recognized  as  the  basis  of 
a  universal  jurisprudence  on  the  rights  of  neutral  nations  in  all  naval 
wars  which  may  hereafter  occur. 

In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  the  present  act  with  our  own  hand 
and  have  hereto  affixed  our  seal. 

Given  at  Vienna,  October  9,   1781. 

[L.  S.]   JOSEPH 

W.  Kaunitz-Rietberg 

Ant.  Spielmann 


Act  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  accepting  the  Accession  of  the  Em- 
peror of  the  Romans  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  Octo- 
ber 30,  178r 

We,  Catherine  II,  by  the  grace  of  God  Empress  and  Autocrat  of  all 
the  Russians,  of  Moscovy,  Kiovia,  Vladimir,  Novgorod,  Czarina  of 
Casan,  Astrakhan,  and  Siberia,  Lady  of  Plescau,  and  Grand  Duchess 


^Translation.  French  text,  F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  la 
Russie,  vol.  2,  p.  126.  The  act  of  accession  was  exchanged  for  the  act  of  accept- 
ance on  October  19th  by  the  respective  plenipotentiaries. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  407 

of  Smolensk,  Duchess  of  Esthonia,  of  Livonia,  Carelia,  Twer,  Ingria, 
Parmia.  Wiatka,  Bulgaria,  and  others.  Lady  and  Grand  Duchess  of 
Lower  Novgorod,  of  Czernigovia,  Kasan,  Rostof,  laroslaw,  Belo, 
Oseria,  Udoria,  Obdoria,  Condenia  Ruler  of  all  the  region  of  the 
North,  Lady  of  Iveria,  and  Hereditary  Princess  and  Sovereign  of 
the  Czars  of  Cartalinia  and  Georgia,  as  v/ell  as  of  Cabardinia,  of  the 
Princes  of  Czircassia,  of  Gorsky,  and  others :  Having  amicably  invited 
His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  King  of  Hungary  and  of 
Bohemia,  to  cooperate  with  us  in  consolidating  the  principles  of  neutral- 
ity on  the  seas,  tending  to  the  maintenance  of  freedom  of  the  maritime 
commerce  and  the  navigation  of  neutral  Powers,  as  set  forth  by  us 
in  our  declaration  of  February  28,  1780,^  delivered  in  our  behalf  to  the 
belligerent  Powers,  which  principles  state  in  substance : 

That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  Powers  at  war  shall  be 
free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  mer- 
chandise. 

That  nothing  shall  be  considered  contraband  except  the  merchandise 
enumerated  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded 
between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  on  June  20,  1766.^ 

That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  designation 
shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  stationed  its 
vessels  sufficiently  near  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  access  thereto 
clearly  dangerous. 

Finally,  that  these  principles  shall  serve  as  the  rule  in  proceedings 
and  judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

And  His  said  Imperial  and  Royal  Apostolic  Majesty  having  con- 
sented, for  this  purpose,  to  manifest  by  a  formal  act  of  accession,  not 
only  his  complete  adhesion  to  the  said  principles,  but  also  his  immediate 
cooperation  in  the  measures  to  ensure  their  execution,  which  we  shall 
adopt  on  our  part,  mutually  contracting  with  His  said  Imperial  and 
Royal  Apostolic  Majesty  the  following  engagements  and  stipulations, 
to  wit: 

(1)  That  the  strictest  neutrality  shall  be  observed  by  both,  that  tlie 
prohibitions   against   commerce    in    contraband   on   the    part   of    their 


^Ante,  p.  273. 
2 Ante,  p.  342. 


408  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

respective  subjects  wit!i  any  one  of  the  Powers  now  at  war,  or  who 
may  hereafter  enter  the  war,  shall  be  most  rigorously  enforced. 

(2)  That  if,  in  spite  of  all  the  caie  exercised  to  this  end,  the 
merchant  ships  of  either  of  the  two  Powers  should  be  taken  or  insulted 
by  any  of  the  vessels  of  tlie  belligerent  Powers,  the  complaints  of  the 
injured  Power  shall  be  supported  in  the  most  effectual  manner  by  the 
other,  and  if  justice  should  be  refused  upon  these  complaints,  they  shall 
continue  to  take  counsel  with  each  other  as  to  the  method  most  likely 
to  secure  it  through  just  reprisals. 

(3)  That  if  it  should  happen  that  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both 
of  them,  as  a  result  of  or  in  contempt  of  the  present  agreement,  should 
be  disturbed,  molested,  or  attacked,  they  would  then  make  common 
cause  for  their  mutual  defense  and  would  work  in  concert  to  secure 
full  and  complete  satisfaction,  both  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for 
the  losses  caused  to  their  subjects. 

(4)  That  these  stipulations  shall  be  considered  by  both  as  permanent 
and  as  being  the  rule  whenever  there  may  be  occasion  to  pass  upon  the 
rights  of  neutrality. 

(5)  That  the  two  Powers  shall  communicate  in  a  friendly  way 
their  present  mutual  agreement  to  all  the  Powers  now  at  war. 

As  a  result  of  the  sincere  friendship  that  happily  unites  us  with 
His  Majesty  the  Emperor,  as  well  as  for  the  welfare  of  Europe  in 
general,  and  of  our  countries  and  subjects  in  particular,  we  formally 
accept  by  virtue  of  the  present  act  the  accession  of  His  Majesty  the 
Emperor  of  the  Romans,  King  of  Hungary  and  of  Bohemia,  to  the 
views,  principles  and  measures,  as  salutary  as  they  are  in  accord  with 
the  most  self-evident  conceptions  of  the  law  of  nations,  promising  and 
solemnly  binding  ourself,  just  as  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  binds 
himself  with  us,  to  observe,  to  execute,  and  to  guarantee  all  the  points 
and  stipulations  aforesaid. 

In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  the  present  act  and  have  hereto 
affixed  our  seal. 

Given  at  St.  Petersburg,  October  19,  1781^  and  the  twentieth  year 
of  our  reign. 

[L.S.]     CATHERINE 

Count  John  d'Ostermann 


^October  30,  1781,  new  style. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUAIENTS  409 

Act  signed  by  the  Empress  of  Russia  concerning  the  Adoption  of 
the  Principles  of  the  Armed  Neutrality  as  Universal  Rules  for 
the  Conduct  of  Naval  War,  October  30,  178P 

We,  Catherine  II,  by  the  grace  of  God  Empress  and  Autocrat  of  all 
the  Russias,  of  Muscovy,  Kiovia,  Vladimir,  Novgorod,  Czarina  of 
Casan,  Czarina  of  Astrakhan,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

As  the  desire  to  see  the  restoration  of  tranquillity  in  Europe,  which 
animates  us  together  with  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans, 
King  of  Hungary  and  of  Bohemia,  has  led  us  to  unite  our  efforts  with 
those  of  His  Imperial  and  Royal  Apostolic  Majesty  to  hasten  so  salu- 
tary event,  and  as  we  have  to  this  end,  in  concert  with  him,  offered  our 
mediation,  which  has  been  equally  accepted  by  the  belligerent  Powers, 
we  have,  moreover,  mutually  agreed  to  work  in  concert,  when  peace 
shall  have  been  restored,  to  secure  the  permanent  establishment  of  the 
principles  on  the  rights  of  neutrality-,  which  are  the  subject  of  the 
public  act  of  acceptance  which  we  have  this  day  signed. 

Therefore  we  propose,  and  we  bind  ourselves  by  the  present  act 
with  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  who  for  his  part 
promises  and  binds  himself  with  us,  to  take  up  conjointly  and  in  the 
most  effectual  manner  with  the  naval  Powers  in  general  the  question 
of  having  the  said  principles  accepted  and  recognized  as  the  basis 
of  a  universal  jurisprudence  on  the  rights  of  neutral  nations  in  all 
naval  wars  which  may  hereafter  occur. 

In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  the  present  act  with  our  own  hand 
and  have  hereto  affixed  our  seal. 

Given  at  St.  Petersburg,  October  19-  in  the  year  of  grace  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty  one  and  the  twentieth  year  of  our  reign. 

[L.  S.]   CATHERINE 

Count  John  d'Ostermann 


^Translation.     French  text,  F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  la 
Riissic,  vol.  2,  p.  129. 
^October  30,  new  style. 


410  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Extract  from  an  Official  Despatch  from  the  Court  of  Denmark  to 
M.  Schumacher,  Charge  d'Affaires  at  St.  Petersburg,  relative 
to  the  Operations  of  an  Armed  Neutrality^ 

I  take  for  the  basis  of  all  our  operations  a  grand  fleet  stationed  in 
the  channel,  and  then  I  think  the  following  the  proper  means  that  are 
to  be  observed  at  the  Court  where  you  are : 

First,  Before  all  things,  the  grand  fleet  being  thus  stationed,  the  con- 
tracting Powers  are  to  agree  on  the  number  of  ships  that  every  one  is 
to  send,  and  on  everything  relative  thereto. 

Secondly,  They  shall  get  the  King  of  Prussia,  and  the  Emperor,  etc., 
etc.,  to  approve  of  the  heads  of  the  Russian  declaration  as  soon  as 
possible. 

Thirdly,  In  case  the  peace  should  not  take  place  this  winter,  and  the 
war  be  continued  the  summer  following,  the  wise  and  prudent  Count 
Panin  will  not  fail,  as  soon  as  the  fleet  has  taken  its  station,  to  make 
the  most  pressing  and  serious  instances  with  the  Court  of  London,  in 
order  to  determine  it  to  a  declaration  conformably  to  that  of  the 
Courts  of  Versailles  and  Madrid ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  Court  of 
London  has  nothing  else  in  view  than  to  elude  the  plans  and  efforts 
of  Russia,  to  gain  time,  and  to  seize  the  opportunity  of  a  lucky  mo- 
ment to  take  revenge.  You  ask  me.  Sir,  why  I  think  the  Empress 
harbours  such  designs?  I  answer  you  because  Russia  seems  to  have 
a  mind  to  fit  out  a  great  fleet,  while  a  very  moderate  number  of  ves- 
sels would  be  enough  for  the  security  of  neutral  navigation.  The  ob- 
ject is  really  worth  the  while,  if  the  design  is,  to  turn  the  embarrass- 
ment of  England  to  the  common  good  of  mankind. 

Fourthly,  Should  England  refuse  to  comply  with  this  system  of 
equity,  then  recourse  must  be  had  to  menaces,  remonstrances,  reprisals 
and  other  disagreeable  means  that  may  serve  to  justify  such  beneficial 
and  vast  designs.  I  never  can  think,  that  England  should  mean  to 
stand  it  out  against  a  fleet  of  fifty  sail. 

Fifthly,  This  point  being  once  gained  by  a  vigorous  and  unforeseen 
blow,  there  remains  nothing  more,  but  to  digest  and  form  the  code  of 
maritime  laws,  which  cannot  be  done  with  more  impartiality,  than 
under  the  eyes  of  the  benefactress  of  Europe,  and  under  the  direction 


^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  120,  227. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  411 

of  her  great  Minister.  This  code  shall  pass  into  a  law  at  the  future 
pacification.  In  the  meantime,  a  less  numerous  fleet  will  be  sufficient 
to  watch  the  English  and  Spaniards,  and  to  make  them  respect  the 
heads  of  the  declaration.  I  dread  the  English,  and  the  incertitude  of 
the  time  to  come :  I  do  not  trust  convoys,  nor  dispersed  forces,  neither 
do  I  think  that  the  union  of  the  allied  Powers  will  be  of  a  long  stand- 
ing. The  iron  must  be  struck  while  it  is  hot :  with  the  Empress  at  the 
head,  every  thing  may  be  done,  every  thing  may  be  obtained,  her 
threats  alone  made  the  peace  of  Teschen;  but  if  there  be  any  question 
of  a  greater  equipment  for  the  next  year,  I  beg  you  to  direct  matters 
in  such  a  manner,  that  we  be  informed  of  the  proposal  in  the  month 
of  November. 


Prussian  Declaration  and  Ordinance  concerning  Navigation, 
November  3,  178P 

His  Royal  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  has  indeed,  by  his  first 
thorough-going  declaration  of  April  30-  of  the  present  year  already 
sufficiently  acquainted  every  one  with  the  fact  that  during  the  present 
war  His  Majesty  intends  to  have  a  strict  neutrality  observed  and  navi- 
gation of  his  subjects  so  conducted  that  in  availing  themselves  of  their 
natural  freedom,  navigation  may  not  be  misused  to  such  injury  of  the 
belligerent  Powers  as  would  warrant  the  latter,  for  good  reasons,  to 
complain.  As,  however,  it  is  being  stated  publicly  and  in  some  localities 
complaint  is  being  made,  that  foreign  ships,  even  ships  belonging  to  the 
belligerent  nations  are  making  use  of  the  royal  flag,  and  under  its  pro- 
tection are  carrying  on  an  illicit  trade.  His  Royal  Majesty  declares 
solemnly,  in  consequence,  that  the  use  of  his  flag  has  been  granted  to 
no  one  and  that  no  passes  will  be  issued  to  any  one,  except  to  his 
veritable  and  true  subjects  who  a?  such  are  really  residing  in  his  lands 
and  are  owners  of  houses,  property  and  possessions,  and  that  accord- 
ingly, if  other  and  foreign  shippers,  such  as  are  not  provided  with 
Prussian  passes,  make  use  of  the  Prussian  flag  which  His  Majesty  can 
not  prevent  on  the  open  sea,  His  Majesty  will  not  afford  them  either 

^Translation.     German  text.  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  290. 
^Ante.  p.  391. 


412  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

protection  or  assistance,  but  will  leave  them  to  their  own  fate,  tlis 
Ro3'al  Majesty  can  therefore  not  be  held  responsible  for  such  use  of 
the  Prussian  flag,  which  Tlis  Alajcsty  has  not  authorized  and  can  not 
readily  prevent ;  and  His  Majesty  expects  therefore  from  the  sense 
of  justice  of  the  belligerent  Powers  that  they  will  not  hold  the  true 
Prussian  mariners  accotmtabie  for  such  use  of  his  flag,  nor  malce  them 
suffer  therefor. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  safe  navigation  and  observance  of  strict 
neutrality  do  not  depend  so  much  upon  the  flag  as  upon  the  genuine 
passes  which  mariners,  to  establish  their  identity,  must  secure  from 
their  national  authorities,  therefore,  to  obviate  any  and  every  possible 
misuse,  His  Royal  Majesty  directs  and  commands  herewith,  earnestly 
and  strictly,  all  his  subjects  who  carry  on  navigation  and  maritime 
trade,  that,  if  they  intend  to  send  forth  ships  and  ship  cargoes  to 
distant  seas,  lakes,  coasts  and  regions  of  the  earth,  they  no  longer 
shall,  as  customary  hitherto,  apply  for  passes  to  magistrates  or  sub- 
ordinate boards,  but  at  Berlin,  to  the  Royal  Department  for  Foreign 
Affairs  where  they  shall  be  supplied  with  passes  under  the  royal  seal, 
provided  that  they  have  in  advance  secured  the  customary  bills  of 
lading  and  statements  regarding  the  ship's  cargo,  together  with  de- 
pendable proof  showing  that  the  ship  out-fitters  and  owners,  all  of 
whose  names  must  be  stated  specifically,  are  veritable  and  real  royal 
Prussian  subjects,  authenticated  by  attestations  from  the  magistrates 
and  war  and  domain  boards  of  each  province,  and  thus  have  qualified 
themselves  to  receive  a  royal  passport.  From  this  ordinance  remain 
excluded  those  Prussian  shippers  navigating  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
not  outside  the  Oere-sound  and  the  Great  and  Lesser  Belt;  to  save 
time,  these  navigators  may  secure  passes  from  the  hitherto  customary 
places,  and  those  who  engage  in  short  trips  in  the  North  Sea  from  the 
ports  of  East  Friesland,  to  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
Netherlands,  who  for  want  of  time  and  because  of  the  great  distance 
and  inconsiderable  cargoes  can  not  conveniently  secure  passes  from 
Berlin,  may,  as  hitherto,  apply  for  and  receive  passes  from  the  magis- 
trate of  the  city  of  Emden  and  from  the  royal  war  and  domain  boards 
of  the  principality  of  East  Friesland  under  the  proper  supervision  of 
the  latter. 

As  this  ordinance  is  made  known  for  the  information  and  observ- 
ance of  all  Royal  Prussian  subjects,  in  all  other  respects,  the  first 
royal  declaration  of  April  30  is  to  be  observed  and  is  hereby  renewed 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  413 

and  confirmed,  so  that  both  royal  ordinances  shall  serve  as  prescrip- 
tion and  line  of  conduct  to  the  royal  subjects  who  engage  in  naviga- 
tion and  maritime  commerce. 

Given  at  Berlin,  November  3,  1781. 

By  special  order  of  His  Royal   Majesty. 

E.  F.  V.  Herzberg 

FiNKENSTEIN 


Swedish    Note   to    Prussia    regarding    Prussia's    Accession   to   the 
Armed  Neutrality,  December  5,  178r 

The  King  being  informed  of  the  act  passed  the  8th  of  May,  of  the 
present  year  between  the  Courts  of  Petersburg  and  Berlin,  felt,  with 
an  extreme  satisfaction,  how  much  strength  the  beneficial  system  of 
the  navigation  and  trade  of  neutral  nations  was  about  to  gain  by  the 
engagements  which  His  Prussian  Majesty  had  lately  contracted,  and 
by  which  he  concurs  to  support  the  principles  already  adopted,  and 
generally  announced  on  the  part  of  the  King  and  his  allies. 

His  Majesty  felt  no  less  satisfaction  when  he  heard  that  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty  had  a  mind  to  extend  these  very  engagements,  by  render- 
ing them  common  with  those  of  His  Majesty;  and  as  nothing  can  be 
added  to  the  maritime  convention  concluded  last  year  July  2 1st/ August 
1st,  between  the  Courts  of  Sweden  and  Russia,^  His  Majesty  would 
be  very  glad,  if  Plis  Prussian  Majesty  was  pleased  to  accede  to  the 
same  convention ;  in  which  case,  His  Majesty  would  do  every  thing 
in  his  power  to  facilitate  the  arrangements  concerning  the  stipulations 
that  are  to  be  substituted  by  His  Prussian  Majesty,  instead  of  those 
contained  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  articles  of  the  convention,  whereby 
the  mutual  protection  is  fixed  which  the  allies  have  promised  to  give 
one  another;  and  the  ties  of  this  alliance  could  not  be  rendered 
stronger,  than  by  expressly  determining  the  reciprocal  assistance  to 
which  the  high  contracting  Parties  bind  themselves,  and  thus  making 
every  one  partake  both  of  the  essential  obligations  and  advantages  of 
this  union. 


'^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  128,  234. 
-Ante,  p.  311. 


414  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

If  the  chief  object  of  the  convention  concluded  between  the  sover- 
eigns of  the  north  consists  in  the  conservation  of  the  dearest  and  most 
precious  rights  of  mankind — if  these  Powers  see  the  necessity  of  taking 
all  possible  care  to  establish  a  code  of  maritime  laws,  in  which  these 
rights  are  settled  in  favor  of  the  neutral  nations ; — nothing  can  be 
more  conformable  to  so  great  and  glorious  a  design,  than  that  His 
Prussian  Majesty  should  employ  all  the  influence,  which  he  has  so 
justly  acquired  in  the  affairs  of  Europe ;  nothing  can  be  more  con- 
formable to  the  King's  wishes,  than  to  multiply  the  ties  with  which 
he  is  already  so  firmly  attached  to  His  Prussian  Majesty.  This  is 
what  the  subscribed  is  ordered  to  declare,  in  answer  to  the  note 
delivered  by  Baron  de  Keller,  and  dated  the  20th  April  of  the  present 
year. 

Done  at  Stockholm,  the  5th  of  December,  1781. 


Detailed  Elucidation  of  the  Prussian  Ordinances  of  April  30  and 
November  3,  1781,  concerning  Commerce  and  Navigation,  De- 
cember 8,  178P 

Through  His  Royal  Majesty's  ordinances  of  April  30  and  Novem- 
ber 3  of  this  year,^  the  royal  subjects  have  already  been  advised  in 
what  manner,  for  their  greater  security,  they  should  organize  their 
navigation  and  maritime  commerce ;  in  view  of  the  fact,  however,  that 
certain  doubts  still  exist  and  certain  questions  have  arisen  in  regard 
thereto,  therefore,  in  order  to  remove  these  doubts  and  dispose  of 
these  questions,  in  the  name  and  on  the  part  of  His  Royal  Majesty, 
the  following  is  additionally  established,  ordered  and  published  for 
the  guidance  of  royal  Prussian  subjects,  engaging  in  navigation  and 
maritime  commerce: 

Article  1 

It  is  self-evident  that,  since  Prussian  ships  which  put  to  sea  before 
the  issuance  of  the  ordinance  of  November  3,  could  not  have  pro- 
vided themselves  with  the  court  passes  prescribed  therein  by  the  Royal 


^Translation.     German  text,  Martens,  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  293. 
^Ante,  pp.  391,  411. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  415 

Ministry  for  Foreign  Affairs,  the  lack  of  such  passes  can  not  accrue 
to  their  disadvantage  in  any  courts  of  justice  nor  in  any  other  places, 
and  that  the  hitherto  customary  passes  with  which  they  put  to  sea 
must  retain  their  force  and  validity  and  ensure  those  ships  up  to  the 
time  of  their  return  to  Prussian  ports.  In  order,  however,  still  further 
to  obviate  all  difficulties,  it  is  hereby  established,  that  the  necessity  of 
securing  court  passes  from  Berlin  direct,  shall  go  in  force,  beginning 
only  with  January  1,  1782,  so  that  every  one  may  have  sufficient  time 
to  procure  such  passes. 

Article  2 

It  remains  established  that  small  ships  not  carrying  more  than  100 
tons  burthen,  as  well  as  such  as  navigate  only  in  the  Baltic  and  North 
Sea,  and  not  outside  of  the  channel  separating  France  and  England, 
need  not  secure  their  passes  from  Berlin  if  they  do  not  find  it  con- 
venient to  do  so,  but  at  their  pleasure  as  hitherto,  in  order  to  save 
time,  from  the  admiralties  and  war  and  domain  boards  of  each  prov- 
ince, as  well  as  from  the  magistrates  of  the  cities ;  and  to  that  end, 
the  said  boards  are  hereby  strictly  exhorted,  to  exercise  the  greatest 
care,  to  prevent  all  misuse,  and  in  strict  compliance  with  the  royal 
ordinances,  that  passes  shall,  in  consequence,  be  issued  to  none  but 
veritable  and  real  royal  subjects.  By  the  declaration  of  November  3, 
it  is  solely  His  Royal  Majesty's  fatherly  intention  to  procure  the 
greater  security  through  the  maritime  passes  to  be  issued  through  his 
Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  which  is  best  acquainted  with  the  general 
state  of  affairs,  to  those  Prussian  ships  which  sail  beyond  the  channel 
into  the  great  ocean  and  engage  in  navigation  and  maritime  commerce 
in  those  distant  seas,  countries  and  coasts,  and  to  prevent,  as  far  as 
possible,  prejudicial  incidents. 

Article  3 

As  the  skippers,  before  their  ships  have  taken  their  full  cargo  on 
board,  can  not  properly  send  to  Berlin  complete  bills  of  lading  of 
their  cargoes,  therefore,  those  requiring  direct  royal  court  passes, 
shall  not  be  required  to  procure  more  than  general  certificates  and 
vouchers  from  the  admiralties,  boards  and  magistrates  regarding  the 
ownership  of  the  vessel,  and  in  case  the  pass  is  also  to  indicate  the 
cargo  of  the  ship,  then  the  quality  of  the  cargo  of  which  it  consists, 
all  of  which  will  suffice  to  form  judgment  whether  the  cargo  is  free 
and  unprohibited,  and  whether  thereupon  the  court  may  issue  passes ; 


416  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

on  the  other  hand,  the  exact,  specific  and  complete  bills  of  lading  and 
attestations  regarding  ship  cargoes  and  the  quantity  of  each  article 
may  be  procured  and  solemnized  in  the  manner  hitherto  customary, 
only  in  the  place  where  the  freight  is  taken  on  board,  or  in  the  same 
province,  from  the  admiralties,  boards  and  magistrates. 

Article  4 

To  stimulate  national  commerce,  the  Royal  Prussian  subjects  have 
been  advised  by  the  ordinance  of  April  30,  as  far  as  possible,  to  carry 
on  their  navigation  and  maritime  commerce  for  their  own  account 
and  with  their  own  merchandise,  and  in  the  ordinance  of  November  3 
it  is  stated  that  to  obtain  the  court  passes,  the  required  attestations 
should  be  provided,  and  that  the  ship  out-fitters  and  the  ov/ners  of 
the  ships  and  cargoes  should  be  Royal  Prussian  subjects.  Since,  how- 
ever, the  former  was  mere  advice,  and  the  latter  was  required  for  the 
purpose  of  greater  caution,  Royal  Prussian  subjects,  who  are  provided 
with  other  proper  maritime  passes,  are  always  free  and  unhindered, 
in  virtue  of  the  declaration  referred  to  as  of  April  30,  to  carry  mer- 
chandise and  goods  of  foreign  and  even  of  the  belligerent  nations 
which  according  to  the  rights  and  usages  of  the  peoples  and  of  the 
second  article  of  the  declaration  of  April  30,  are  permitted  and  un- 
prohibited, to  regions  and  places  not  besieged  or  closely  blockaded, 
and  in  consequence,  according  to  the  principles  accepted  and  published 
by  His  Royal  Majesty  and  his  high  authorities,  Royal  Prussian  sub- 
jects will  not  in  such  cases  fail  of  His  Majesty's  protection  and  assist- 
ance, all  of  which,  in  order  to  remove  all  misinterpretation  of  the 
ordinance  of  November  3,  is  hereby  declared. 

Article  5 

The  commanders  and  officials  of  Prussian  ships  when  landing  in 
ports  and  places  where  royal  consuls  reside,  shall  submit  their  mari- 
time passes  to  the  latter  and  have  it  certified  by  them  that  the  ships 
are  still  possessed  of  such  passes  as  were  issued  to  them. 

Article  6 

The  said  commanders  will  do  well  to  have  with  them  on  board 
ship  the  royal  declarations  and  ordinances  of  April  30  and  November  3 
together  with  the  present  explanatory  ordinance  and  their  passes,  on 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  417 

the  one  hand,  to  be  guided  thereby,  and  on  the  other,  if  necessary  and 
serviceable,  to  present  their  orders  and  thus  be  able  to  prove  their 
identity.  This  ordinance  and  declaration,  as  well  as  the  declarations 
of  April  30  and  November  3  which  are  renewed  and  at  the  same  time 
interpreted  by  this  present  one  serves  especially  as  guidance  for  the 
Royal  Prussian  subjects  who  engage  in  navigation  and  maritime  com- 
merce. If  under  this  declaration  and  ordinance  they  should  neverthe- 
less commit  some  error  and  not  be  provided  with  the  required  passes, 
the  commanders  of  the  armed  ships  of  the  belligerent  nations  shall 
not  be  entitled  either  to  stop  or  capture  them  on  that  account,  provided 
they  have  not  acted  contrary  to  the  laws  of  neutrality  and  of  nations 
accepted  by  His  Majesy,  but  shall  be  answerable  for  such  conduct  to 
His  Royal  Majesty  alone. 

Given  at  Berlin,  December  8,  1781. 

By  special  command  of  His  Royal  Majesty. 

E.  F.  V.  Herzberg 

FiNKENSTEIN 


Danish  Note  to  Prussia  regarding  Prussia's  Accession  to  the  Armed 
Neutrality,  December  17,  178P 

It  was  with  the  most  perfect  satisfaction,  that  the  King  learned  His 
Prussian  Majesty's  desire  of  taking  part  in  the  beneficial  system  of 
neutrality;  the  principles  of  which,  drawn  from  the  primitive  law  of 
nations,  have  been  exposed  in  the  declaration  of  Her  Majesty,  the 
Empress,  dated  February  the  28th  1780;^  and  His  Prussian  Majesty 
has  resolved  to  guarantee  them,  for  the  better  support  of  these  prin- 
ciples, by  means  of  a  formal  act  concluded  for  this  effect,  with  Her 
Imperial  Majesty;  the  friendly  communication  of  which.  His  Prussian 
Majesty  was  pleased  to  make  to  the  King,  and  the  latter  received  with 
the  most  sincere  thanks. 

Penetrated  with  the  equity  and  justice  of  these  very  principles,  the 
King   himself    has   established   and   claimed   them   in   the   declaration 


^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  124,  230. 
^Ante,  p.  273. 


418  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

which  he  ordered  to  be  sent  the  8th  of  July  1780/  to  the  belligerent 
Courts;  and  for  their  support,  His  Majesty  has  concluded  a  maritime 
convention,  signed  at  Copenhagen  the  9th  of  July,  with  Her  Majesty 
the  Empress  of  Russia,-  which  he  here  notifies  to  His  Prussian  Maj- 
esty with  great  pleasure. 

These  principles  being  alone  capable  of  establishing  the  security  of 
commerce,  and  of  the  navigation  of  neutral  nations,  the  King  cannot 
but  ardently  desire  to  see  them  acknowledged  by  all  the  Powers  of 
Europe,  and  to  feel,  in  consequence  of  this  desire,  all  the  importance  of 
their  being  adopted  by  His  Prussian  Majesty. 

Nothing  would  therefore  be  more  conformable  to  the  wishes  of  His 
Majesty,  than  to  hear  that  it  pleased  His  Prussian  Majesty  to  accede 
to  this  convention,  such  as  it  was  concluded  between  the  Courts  of 
Denmark  and  Russia,  in  which  case  His  Majesty  would  contribute,  on 
his  side,  as  far  as  possible,  towards  facilitating  all  the  dispositions 
concerning  the  stipulations  that  are  to  be  put  into  the  room  of  those 
contained  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  articles  of  this  convention ;  whereby, 
the  high  contracting  Parties  promise  themselves  mutual  protection, 
and  while  they  expressly  determine  the  common  efforts  and  reciprocal 
assistance,  the  tie  of  this  alliance  is  formed  in  the  most  natural  manner, 
and  every  one  made  to  partake  both  of  all  that  is  essential  in  the  obli- 
gations and  advantages  resulting  from  their  union. 

Never  was  the  object  more  important,  or  the  end  of  an  alliance 
more  glorious,  than  that  which  was  the  soul  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty's 
resolutions,  when  she  proposed  to  the  other  Powers  of  the  north  this 
respectable  convention,  which  must  one  day  produce  the  maritime  code 
promised  by  that  great  Princess,  to  the  whole  universe :  This  alliance 
has  nothing  in  view,  but  the  preservation  of  rights,  the  dearest  and 
most  precious  to  mankind ;  and  who  could  be  more  capable  of  pro- 
moting them,  than  a  sovereign  of  so  consummate  wisdom,  as  His 
Prussian  Majesty  is,  whose  influence  on  the  affairs  of  Europe,  is  so 
extensive,  and  whose  friendship  is  so  justly  courted? 

This  is  what  the  King  ordered  the  underwritten  to  say  in  answer 
to  the  note  delivered  by  M.  von  Bismarck,  dated  the  15th  of  August. 

From  the  Royal  Department  for  Foreign  affairs,  Copenhagen  the 
17th  of  December,  1781. 

ROSENCRONE 


^Ante,  p.  297. 
^Ante,  p.  299. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  419 

Swedish  Note  to  Prussia  regarding  Swedish  Accession  to  the  Con- 
vention of  May  19,  1781,  between  Russia  and  Prussia,  for  the 
Maintenance  of  the  Freedom  of  Neutral  Commerce  and  Navi- 
gation, May  2,  1782^ 

When  the  King  granted,  last  year,  to  the  subjects  of  His  Prussian 
Majesty,  the  protection  which  that  Monarch  desired  for  the  security 
of  their  commerce  and  navigation.  His  Majesty,  with  a  real  satisfac- 
tion, seized  the  opportunity  of  showing,  at  the  same  time,  his  attach- 
ment to  the  principles  of  free  neutral  navigation,  which  he  has  con- 
stantly followed,  together  with  the  sentiments  of  personal  regard  and 
friendship  for  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia.  His  Majesty  having 
afterwards  been  invited  to  join  the  act  passed  at  Petersburg  the  8th 
of  May  1781,^  between  His  Prussian  Majesty  and  the  Empress  of 
Russia,  there  could  be  no  question  but  about  choosing  the  manner 
the  most  simple,  and  the  most  natural  to  the  engagements  which  His 
Majesty  was  going  to  contract.  The  King,  in  consequence,  proposed 
to  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  to  join  the  maritime  convention, 
formerly,  and  since  the  year  1780,  concluded  between  the  King  and 
Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  Rvissia,  by  observing  the  different  obliga- 
tions which  the  different  situations  of  the  two  kingdoms  should  render 
necessary. 

But  the  King  of  Prussia  having,  by  the  means  of  a  second  note, 
which  was  delivered  by  the  subscribed  by  his  Envoy,  intimated  a  de- 
sire, for  reasons  contained  in  the  same  note,  of  joining  the  above- 
mentioned  act  of  the  8th  of  May  1781,  His  Majesty  thought  himself 
obliged  to  consult  nothing  but  his  friendship  for  the  King,  together 
with  the  advantage  which  must  accrue  to  the  system  of  free  neutral 
commerce,  by  the  accession  of  a  Prince  whose  credit  and  importance 
are  so  universally  established.  In  consequence  the  King  has  ordered 
the  subscribed  to  notify  to  Baron  de  Keller,  in  answer  to  his  note  of 
the  22nd  of  February,  that  the  King  is  resolved  to  comply  with  the 
desire  of  His  Prussian  Majesty :  In  conformity  of  which,  he  must,  in 
like  manner,  inform  Baron  de  Keller,  that  Baron  de  Nolken,  the 
King's  Envoy  Extraordinary  at  the  Court  of  Petersburg,  will  immedi- 
ately receive  his  orders  for  acceding  by  the  means  of  formal  declara- 
tions from  His  Majesty,  to  the  act  concluded  in  this  city,  the  8th  of 
May  last  year;  and,  in  consequence  of  the  friendship  subsisting  be- 


^The  Secret  Historv  of  the  Armed  Neutrnlitx.  pp.  131,  237. 
2May  19,  1781,  new 'style,  ante,  p.  397. 


420  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tween  the  two  Crowns,  the  subscribed  has  the  honour  of  subjoining 
here  the  copies  of  those  declarations  which  Baron  de  Nolken  will  be 
ordered  to  deliver  on  one  side,  to  the  minister  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
of  all  the  Russias,  and  on  the  other  to  Count  de  Goertz,  His  Prussian 
Majesty's  Envoy  Extraordinary  residing  at  the  said  Court;  on  condi- 
tion, that  the  acts  of  acceptation  which  may  be  found  necessary  for 
carrying  so  beneficial  a  work  to  perfection,  be  delivered  by  the  two 
respective  Courts  to  Baron  de  Nolken. 

His  Majesty  feels  the  greater  pleasure  in  answering,  on  this  occa- 
sion, the  desire  of  the  King  his  uncle,  as  he  hopes,  that  this  new  union 
will  strengthen  the  ties  of  friendship  by  which  the  two  sovereigns  are 
already,  in  so  many  respects,  united. 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Portugal  for  the  Maintenance  of 
the  Freedom  of  Neutral  Commerce  and  Navigation,  by  which 
Portugal  accedes  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  July  24, 
1782^ 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  having  invited  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen  of  Portugal  to  cooperate  with  her  in  the  consolidation  of 
the  principles  of  neutrality  on  the  sea  and  in  the  maintenance  of 
freedom  of  the  maritime  commerce  and  the  navigation  of  neutral 
Powers,  in  conformity  with  her  declaration  of  February  28,  1780,- 
transmitted  in  her  name  to  the  belligerent  Powers ;  the  Queen,  because 
of  the  sincere  friendship  uniting  Her  Imperial  Majesfy  to  Her  Most 
Faithful  Majesty,  as  well  as  for  the  interest  of  Europe  in  general  and 
of  her  countries  and  subjects  in  particular,  wishes  to  contribute  her 
share  to  the  execution  of  the  principles  and  measures,  which  are  as 
salutary  as  they  are  in  accord  with  the  clearest  conceptions  of  the  law 
of  nations.  And  therefore  she  has  determined  to  appoint,  in  concert 
with  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Portugal,  plenipotentiaries,  and  to 
instruct  them  to  conclude  a  convention,  the  spirit  and  content  of  which 
shall,  in  all  respects,  be  in  accord  with  these  same  intentions. 

^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  666. 
M>!/r,  p.  273. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  421 

To  this  end  Their  said  Majesties  have  chosen,  appointed,  and  author- 
ized, Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  John  Count  d'Oster- 
mann,  her  Vice  Chancellor,  Privy  Councilor,  Senator,  and  Chevalier  of 
the  Orders  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky  and  of  St.  Anne;  Alexander 
Besborodka,  Major  General  of  her  Armies,  Member  of  the  Department 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Colonel  commanding  the  Kiovia  Regiment  of 
Militia  of  Little  Russia ;  and  Pierre  de  Bacounin,  her  Councilor  of 
State,  Member  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Chevalier 
of  the  Order  of  St.  Anne:  and  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Portugal, 
Francis  Joseph  d'Horta-Machado  of  her  Council,  and  her  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  at  the  Imperial  Court  of  Russia ;  who  after  having 
exchanged  their  full  powers,  found  to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have 
agreed  on  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  and  Her  Most  Faithful 
Majesty,  convinced  of  the  solidity  and  the  indisputable  self-evidence  of 
the  principles  set  forth  in  the  aforesaid  declaration  of  February  28, 
1780,  which  may  be  reduced  in  substance  to  the  five  following  points : 

(1)  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  and  merchandise  belonging  to  subjects  of  the 
Powers  at  war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception 
of  contraband  merchandise. 

(3)  That  nothing  shall  be  considered  contraband  except  the  mer- 
chandise enumerated  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce 
concluded  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  on  June  20,  1766.^ 

(4)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  sta- 
tioned a  proportionate  number  of  vessels  sufficiently  near  to  render 
access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(5)  Finally,  that  these  principles  shall  serve  as  the  rule  in  proceed- 
ings and  judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes. 

Their  Majesties  declare  that,  not  only  do  they  fully  adhere  to  the 
same  principles,  but  that  on  all  occasions  they  will  cooperate  effectually 
to  maintain  them  in  all  their  force  and  effect,  and  that  they  will  see 
to  their  strict  enforcement. 

K4nte,  p.  342. 


422  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  2 

The  present  convention  shall  not,  in  any  respect,  impair  the  force 
of  treaties  now  existing  between  the  Court  of  Russia  or  of  Portugal 
and  any  other  Court  of  Europe  whatsoever.  But  those  treaties  and 
the  stipulations  therein  contained  shall  continue  to  have  the  same  bind- 
ing force  on  both  parties  as  in  the  past,  and  this  convention  can  never 
invalidate  them,  still  less  infringe  upon  them. 

Article  3 

The  high  contracting  Powers  shall  continue  to  observe  the  strictest 
neutrality  and  shall  see  to  the  most  scrupulous  enforcement  of  the 
prohibitions  against  commerce  in  contraband  on  the  part  of  their 
respective  subjects  with  any  one  of  the  Powers  now  at  war  or  which 
may  hereafter  enter  into  the  war,  including  specifically  under  the  head 
of  contraband  those  goods  which  in  the  aforesaid  Articles  10  and  11 
of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  concluded  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain 
on  June  20,  1766,  are  considered  as  such. 

Article  4 

If,  in  spite  of  the  care  exercised  to  this  end,  Russian  or  Portuguese 
merchant  ships  should  be  taken  or  insulted  by  any  vessels  of  the  bel- 
ligerent Powers,  the  complaints  and  representations  of  the  injured 
Power  shall  be  supported  in  the  most  effectual  manner  by  the  other. 
And  if,  contrary  to  all  expectation,  justice  should  be  refused  on  these 
complaints,  they  shall  continue  to  take  counsel  with  each  other  as  to 
the  method  that  is  best  calculated  to  secure  indemnification  through 
just  reprisals. 

Article  5 

If  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both  of  them  should,  as  a  result  of 
or  in  contempt  of  the  present  convention,  be  disturbed  or  molested, 
then  they  shall  make  common  cause  for  their  mutual  defense,  and 
shall  work  in  concert  in  order  to  secure  full  and  complete  satisfaction, 
both  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the  losses  caused  to  their 
subjects. 

Article  6 

The  present  stipulations  shall  be  considered  by  both  Parties  as 
permanent  and  as  constituting  the  rule  whenever  there  is  occasion 
to  pass  upon  the  rights  of  neutrality. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  423 

Article  7 

The  Powers  shall  communicate  in  a  friendly  way  their  present  mutual 
agreement  to  all  the  Powers  that  are  now  at  war. 

Article  8 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting 
Parties,  and  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  within  four  months 
from  the  day  on  which  it  is  signed,  or  sooner  if  possible. 

In   faith  whereof  we,  the  plenipotentiaries,  by  virtue  of  our   full 
powers,  have  signed  and  have  hereto  affixed  the  seals  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  July  13,  1782.^ 

[L.  S.]   Count  John  d'Ostermann 

[L.  S.]  Alexander  de  Besborodka 

[L.  S.]   Pierre  de  Bacounin 

[L.  S.]   Franc.  Joseph  d'Horta  Machado 


Memorial  from  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Empress  of  Russia  re- 
garding a  General  Peace  and  a  Code  of  Maritime  Law,  August 
7,  1782- 

If  the  ties,  which  the  King  has  had  the  satisfaction  of  forming  with 
Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  Russia,  during  the  course  of  the  present 
war,  for  the  support  of  the  cause  of  neutral  nations,  could  not  but  be 
infinitely  dear  to  him,  on  account  of  the  zealous  and  lasting  advan- 
tages which  this  association  must  produce  for  all  nations,  and  by  reason 
of  the  honour  of  partaking  with  that  sovereign,  the  glory  which  must 
so  justly  accrue  to  him ;  these  very  ties  are  no  less  precious  to  him,  be- 
cause they  furnish  him  with  opportunities  of  giving  Her  Imperial 
Majesty,  and  of  receiving  from  her,  marks  of  that  entire  confidence, 
the  result  of  the  intimacy  which  subsists  between  the  two  sovereigns, 
and  of  the  perfect  harmony  of  their  mutual  interest.     The  King  has 


ijuly  24,  1782,  new  style. 

^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  139,  244. 


424  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

received  a  new  proof  of  it,  by  the  friendship  which  Her  Majesty  had 
for  him,  in  consulting  him  on  the  measures  to  be  taken  with  regard 
to  the  Republic  of  Holland,  supposing  it  should  continue  to  decline 
entering  into  a  particular  peace  with  England,  even  if  the  latter  could 
be  prevailed  with  to  settle  the  basis,  or  the  principles  of  the  armed 
neutrality  to  be  declared  and  avowed  to  all  the  neutral  Powers.  His 
Majesty  thinks  it  impossible  to  show  his  thankfulness  for  Her  Maj- 
esty's confidence,  by  which  he  was  so  sensibly  affected,  in  a  clearer  man- 
ner, than  by  answering  it  with  all  that  sincerity  which  true  friendship 
demands,  and  which  nothing  but  true  friendship  alone  can  inspire. 
All  Europe  has  acknowledged,  in  the  measures  of  which  Her  Imperial 
Majesty  has  taken  since  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  between  England 
and  Holland,  towards  establishing  the  peace  between  these  two 
Powers,  the  sentiments  that  animate  all  the  actions  of  that  sovereign, 
her  desire  of  procuring  the  good  of  mankind,  in  general,  and  that  of 
her  allies  in  particular.  The  King  has  followed  and  applauded  these 
measures,  with  all  that  interest  he  ever  feels  when  the  Empress's  glory 
is  concerned.  He  was  persuaded  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  having 
considered  the  state  and  situation  of  the  Republic  of  Holland,  must 
have  found,  by  her  great  spirit  of  penetration,  with  which  she  is 
always  sure  of  seeing  things  in  their  proper  light,  new  reasons  for 
augmenting  her  desire,  which  the  goodness  of  her  heart  first  inspired, 
of  bringing  a  peace  about  beneficial  for  England,  but  necessary  for 
Holland.  Indeed,  one  needs  only  to  cast  his  eyes  on  the  situation  the 
Republic  was  in,  before  England's  declaration  of  war,  to  convince  him- 
self how  much  this  event  was  to  its  disadvantage,  and  how  fatal  it 
may  still  prove  to  its  flourishing  State,  its  extensive  and  lucrative  com- 
merce, the  fruits  both  of  a  long  peace  and  its  natural  industry ;  in  a 
word,  every  thing  contributed  to  render  a  war  formidable  to  an  inde- 
pendent republic,  enjoying  all  the  advantages  which  had  been  secured 
to  it  by  the  several  treaties  of  commerce,  concluded  between  it  and 
the  belligerent  Powers ;  in  which  state,  its  breaking  with  England  was 
a  true  misfortune  for  the  Republic ;  and  it  seems  the  little  solidity  of 
reasons  that  occasion  the  rupture,  serves  to  render  its  case  more  in- 
teresting. One  cannot  but  plainly  see  that  a  simple  project  of  a  treaty 
of  commerce ;  a  treaty  which  must  needs  presuppose  the  independence 
of  the  American  States  being  acknowledged  by  England,  because  it 
can  never  have  any  effect  before  that  period,  is  but  a  weak  reason 
for  breaking  with  an  old  friend  and  ally;  if  this  reason  be  maturely 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  425 

weighed,  by  an  equitable  posterity,  it  cannot  fail  of  being  considered 
as  a  pretext  for  covering  the  dissatisfaction  of  a  rival  nation,  in  point 
of  trade,  and  of  a  ministry  which  is  accustomed  to  let  itself  be  hur- 
ried away  into  impetuous  measures.  These  truths  can  as  little  escape 
the  enlightened  wisdom  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  as  they  can  fail  of 
affecting  her  heart,  the  first  emotion  of  which  led  her  to  concert 
means  for  preventing  the  evils  with  which  the  Republic  was  threat- 
ened, by  procuring  to  it  a  speedy  peace.  It  was  a  new  misfortune  for 
Holland,  that  England  would  not  at  that  time  answer  the  generous 
views  of  the  Empress ;  and  if  the  Republic  saw  itself  thereby  de- 
prived of  the  effects  of  Her  Majesty's  good-will,  nevertheless,  by 
what  has  since  happened,  the  Republic  must  be  persuaded,  that  it 
owes  Her  Imperial  Majesty  lasting  thanks  for  her  intentions  in  its 
favour.  It  is,  indeed,  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  fatal  change  than 
that  which  the  situation  of  the  Republic  has  experienced,  by  a  war  of 
so  short  a  duration.  With  the  loss  of  an  immense  commerce,  its  only 
strength,  its  principal  resource,  it  has  forfeited  also  a  considerable 
fishery,  which  alone  was  worth  a  mine  of  gold  to  it.  Its  colonies  in 
America  have  been  attacked,  and  nobody  even  knows  in  whose  hands 
they  may  be  at  present.  The  greater  part  of  its  possessions  in  the 
East  Indies,  conquered  and  preserved  with  so  great  expenses  and 
cares,  are  lost  to  it:  And,  in  fine,  to  render  its  misfortunes  complete, 
it  sees  itself  blocked  up,  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  in  its  own 
harbours,  and  its  vessels  hindered  from  going  in  or  out.  The  natural 
effect  of  all  those  accumulated  calamities  has  been,  to  draw  the  Re- 
public into  the  necessity  of  siding  more  closely  with  France,  against 
the  common  enemy,  and  to  strengthen  the  ties  which  alone  are  its  re- 
source during  the  war,  and  must  procure  its  security  at  the  peace. 
It  was  under  the  necessity  of  throwing  itself  so  entirely  into  the  arms 
of  that  Power,  that  little  is  wanting  to  render  it  entirely  dependent 
on  France ;  and  the  demolition  of  the  barrier  towns  has  completed  a 
system  which  the  necessity  of  war  had  begun.  Thus,  by  a  series  of 
disagreeable  circumstances,  the  Republic  finds  itself  out  of  condition 
to  accept  the  benefits  which  Her  Imperial  Majesty  has  never  ceased 
to  offer  it,  and  which  its  enemy  has  hindered  it  from  turning  to  its 
advantage,  at  the  time  when  it  might  have  been  able  to  do  so.  If  we 
suppose  it  possible,  however,  to  remove  the  obstacles  which  are  at 
present  in  the  way  of  a  separate  peace  between  England  and  Holland, 
it  would  then  become  the  province  of  the  Empress,  as  mediatrix  be- 


426  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tween  the  two  Powers,  to  weigh  in  the  scales  of  natural  equity,  if  the 
Republic  is  to  make  its  peace  without  being  replaced  almost  into  the 
same  state  as  before  the  war  breaking  out,  without  being  put  in  pos- 
session of  its  colonies  and  comptoirs  in  the  East  and  West  Indies, 
and  without  receiving  some  indemnification,  for  the  immense  losses 
caused  by  the  stopping  of  its  commerce  only.  It  is  true,  England 
proposes  the  renewing  of  the  treaty  of  1674.^  It  even  offers  to  ac- 
knowledge, with  regard  to  the  Republic,  those  principles  which  have 
been  adopted  by  the  northern  Powers;  and  this  last  offer  is  without 
doubt  a  very  favourable  omen  for  these  Powers,  but  it  is  not  yet 
generally  made  know;  and  even,  supposing  it  to  be  so,  would  that  be 
enough  for  the  Dutch?  This  is  a  point  on  which  the  King  entirely 
suspends  his  opinion:  He  has  not  taken  the  defence  of  their  cause 
upon  himself,  nor  does  he  intend  to  plead  it  here:  the  only  thing  he 
means  to  show,  is,  that  a  particular  peace  between  England  and  Hol- 
land will  be  incomparably  more  difficult  to  bring  about  at  the  present 
juncture,  than  it  was  immediately  after  the  breaking  out  of  the  war; 
that  is  to  say,  at  the  time  the  Empress  made  her  first  offers  of 
mediation. 

The  King  saw,  with  regret,  the  obstacles  that  opposed  the  glorious 
design  to  which  the  Empress's  philanthropy,  and  her  benevolent 
spirit,  had  prompted  her;  and  a  just  acknowledgment  of  the  confidence 
she  showed  him,  and  his  friendship  for  her  person,  oblige  him  to 
present  those  obstacles  to  the  eyes  of  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  in  the 
same  light  in  which  he  sees  them  himself ;  but  at  the  same  time.  His 
Majesty  finds,  to  his  still  greater  pleasure,  in  the  known  sentiments 
and  good  offices  which  Her  Imperial  Majesty  has  already  offered  for 
a  general  pacification,  and  in  the  association  of  the  northern  Povv^ers, 
the  sufficient  means  of  fully  attaining,  in  the  present  circumstances, 
the  glorious  aim  which.  Her  Imperial  Majesty  and  her  allies  have  pro- 
posed to  themselves ;  and,  by  one  or  the  other  of  these  measures.  His 
Majesty  feels  a  true  satisfaction  in  being  able  to  disclose  his  senti- 
ments on  these  subjects  towards  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  with  all  that 
confidence  which  her  great  penetration  and  her  perfect  friendship,  so 
precious  to  His   Majesty,  inspires  him  with. 

It  is  evident,  that  since  the  change  that  took  place  last  Spring  in 
the  English  Ministry,  affairs  are  greatly  hastening  towards  a  general 


^Treaty  of  December  1,  1674.     Dumont,  vol.  7,  pt.  1,  p.  282. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  427 

pacification.  France  and  England,  both  alike  tired  of  an  expensive 
war,  seeing  themselves  stopped  by  the  circumstance  of  America's  in- 
dependency, an  object  which  the  former  must  absolutely  insist  upon, 
and  the  late  English  Ministry  always  obstinately  refused  to  comply 
with;  but  that  obstacle  seeming  to  be  removed,  by  the  sentiments 
which  the  following  Ministr>^  announced,  and  the  present  appears  to 
have  equally  adopted,  a  direct  negotiation  was  soon  opened  at  Paris. 
It  is  true,  that  the  expenses  of  the  present  campaign,  the  desire  of 
seeing  its  issue,  and  the  interest  of  the  French  allies,  especially  Spain, 
may  probably  stop  the  speedy  effect  of  this  negociation  for  a  moment, 
but  the  campaign  being  once  finished,  it  may  greatly  be  presumed  that 
matters  will  soon  be  settled,  and  the  more  so,  as  the  expedition  which 
Spain  is  going  to  undertake  against  Gibraltar,  must  by  that  time 
either  have  succeeded  or  failed. 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  it  seems  less  to  be  feared  that  the  belligerent 
Powers  will  refuse  making  their  peace,  than  it  is  to  be  dreaded  that 
they  will  finish  their  differences  of  their  own  accord,  and  without  the 
intervention  of  any  one  whoever.  It  is  clear  how  prejudicial  such  a 
peace  may  prove  to  the  cause  of  the  neutral  Powers,  a  cause  which 
Her  Imperial  Majesty,  together  with  the  King  and  her  other  allies, 
have  so  gloriously  supported,  and  hitherto  with  so  much  success.  One 
must  be  persuaded  that  England  never  cordially  approved  of  the 
principles  adopted  in  the  convention  of  the  armed  neutrality,  and  if 
the  House  of  Bourbon  seemed  less  inclined  to  oppose  them,  yet  their 
object  is  too  foreign  to  its  interest,  that  one  should  expect  its  med- 
dling with  them  in  an  essential  manner  at  a  peace  where  France  will 
have  so  many  concerns,  infinitely  dearer  to  it  to  settle. 

Every  thing  seems  therefore,  in  this  juncture,  to  invite  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty,  the  Empress  of  Russia,  and  her  allies,  to  crown,  by 
a  step  which  has  all  appearance  of  proving  decisive,  the  noble  and 
glorious  efforts  which  they  have  never  ceased  to  make  for  settling  the 
rights  of  neutral  nations  on  a  solid,  and  immovable  basis.  To  this 
end  the  King  proposes  his  opinion  to  the  great  penetration  of  the 
Empress,  that  the  only  effectual  means  of  gaining  this  point,  would 
be,  that  Her  Imperial  Majesty,  together  with  all  the  allies  that  have 
taken  part  in  the  maritime  convention,  should  propose  to  the  bellig- 
erent Powers  the  establishing  of  the  congress,  in  which  the  different 
concerns  both  of  the  Powers  at  war,  and  of  the  neutral  States,  should 
be  examined  and  terminated.     The  Emperor  of  the  Romans  having 


428  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

hitherto  shared  the  trouble  which  Her  Majesty  the  Empress  gave 
herself  for  the  general  pacification,  and  being  besides  tied  to  the  con- 
cerns of  the  naval  Powers,  associated  for  the  support  of  the  liberty 
of  trade,  by  engagements  which  that  Prince  has  on  that  account 
entered  into  with  the  Empress,  will  certainly  receive  with  joy  every 
overture  that  Her  Majesty  would  make  to  him  for  joining  the  north- 
ern Powers  in  such  a  step.  His  mediation  already  offered,  his  power 
and  his  credit  with  the  different  States  at  war  cannot  fail  of  giving 
his  representations  a  great  weight,  and  of  accelerating  the  success  of 
two  objects  which  are  proposed  by  a  congress,  viz.,  the  pacification, 
and  the  settling  of  a  maritime  code  of  laws.  For  the  same  end,  the 
King  leaves  it  to  the  Empress's  decision,  whether  it  would  not  be  fit 
to  employ  her  credit  with  the  King  of  Prussia,  to  engage  that  Prince 
to  espouse,  with  all  that  warmth  which  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject requires,  the  concerns  of  the  common  cause :  this  would  be  noth- 
ing more  than  a  consequence  drawn  from  those  principles  which 
made  him  desire  entering  into  the  association  of  the  maritime  Powers : 
and  his  great  personal  qualities,  together  with  that  consideration 
which  he  has  so  deservedly  acquired  by  them,  would  render  every 
step  that  he  should  take  effectually  advantageous  to  the  general  good. 
It  is  easy  to  foresee  what  effect  an  effort  made  of  a  sudden,  and  at 
the  same  time,  by  the  mightiest  States  of  Europe,  must  inevitably 
have  on  the  belligerent  Powers.  This  impression  will  be  the  stronger, 
as  they  cannot  but  soon  feel  that  what  is  proposed  to  them  is  by  no 
means  against  their  interest,  nor  can  have  any  noxious  influence  on  it. 
On  the  contrary,  the  projected  congress  seems  to  be  of  such  a  nature, 
as  must  render  it  agreeable  to  the  whole  world.  The  plenipoten- 
tiaries of  the  States  at  war,  seeing  themselves  assembled  in  one  and 
the  same  place,  will  examine  and  finish  with  greater  easiness  the  dif- 
ferences of  their  Courts.  Should  any  one  of  the  neutral  Powers  be 
accepted  to  execute  the  office  of  mediator  between  any  of  the  bellig- 
erent Powers,  or  among  them  all  in  general,  that  Court  will  employ 
all  its  endeavours  to  accomplish  its  task.  The  rest  may  watch  over 
their  cause,  and,  by  this  means,  a  double  advantage  will  be  gained, 
the  settling  of  solid  peace,  and  the  establishing  of  maritime  laws,  with 
all  that  splendor  and  all  that  security,  with  which  those  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire  were  fixed  by  the  treaty  of  Westphalia ;  and  by  this  the 
aim  will  be  attained,  which  Her  Majesty  and  her  allies  ever  had  in 
view  by  their  maritime  convention,  and  to  which  all  their  steps  have 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  429 

been  constantly  directed;  and  a  glorious  and  useful  work  will  be  fin- 
ished, which  will  ever  claim  the  gratitude  of  future  ages. 

It  is  clear  that,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  general  and  a  lasting  peace, 
in  the  present  circumstances,  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  Prov- 
inces of  America  must  be  called  to  the  congress ;  but  this  article  can- 
not give  rise  to  any  difficulty,  as  England  can  have  no  more  repug- 
nance to  treat  with  them,  since  the  British  Ministers  have  loudly  ex- 
claimed against  the  obstinacy  of  the  late  Ministry,  in  endeavouring  to 
reduce  North  America ;  and  those  who  are  at  present  in  place,  declare, 
that  they  never  will  refuse  acknowledging  its  independency. 

If  the  plan  which  the  King  proposes  be  adopted,  nothing  will  re- 
main, but  to  determine  the  terms  in  which  the  proposals  are  to  be 
couched,  and  they  will  be  easily  agreed  upon ;  and  the  necessary  in- 
structions in  consequence  given  to  the  Ministers  residing  at  the  belli- 
gerent Courts.  The  King  is  of  opinion,  that  it  is  impossible  to  give 
these  proposals  too  great  weight,  and  that  it  would  be  therefore  essen- 
tial to  have  them  made  at  the  same  time  to  every  one  of  these  Courts, 
by  the  Ministers  of  all  those  Powers  that  contributed  towards  that 
work.  It  will  be  likewise  easy  to  agree  on  the  place  where  the  con- 
gress is  to  be  held;  Aix  la  Chapelle,  Mentz,  Frankfort,  or  any  other 
free  imperial  town,  the  nearest  that  is  possible  for  all  those  who  may 
have  any  thing  to  do  there,  will  serve  the  turn. 

The  King  expects,  with  a  great  deal  of  concern,  to  hear  Her  Im- 
perial Majesty's  sentiments  on  the  plan  which  he  has  laid  before  her 
eyes;  but  whatever  they  be.  His  Majesty  is  persuaded,  that  the  Em- 
press must  find  in  it  a  proof  of  his  tender  friendship,  his  perfect  con- 
fidence, his  love  of  their  mutual  glory,  and  his  invariable  adherence 
to  principles  which  he  prides  himself  in  having  constantly  followed 
with  Her  Imperial  Majesty. 

Done  at  Drottningholm,  the  7th  of  August,  1782. 


Reply  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  to  the  King  of  Sweden  regarding 
a  General  Peace  and  a  Code  of  Maritime  Law,  September  7, 
1782^ 

The  Empress  was  very  sensible  of  the  confidence  and  cordiality 
with  which  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  explained  himself  to- 


^The  Secret  History  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  pp.  154,  259. 


430  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

wards  her,  in  a  note  lately  delivered  by  his  Charge  d'Affaires,  on  the 
present  situation  of  Europe. 

Her  Majesty,  entirely  convinced  that  nothing  can  be  added  to  the 
judicious  reflections,  and  to  the  choice  of  the  means  proposed  by  the 
King,  with  respect  to  the  grand  aim  of  a  general  pacification,  and  the 
consolidation  of  the  neutral  system  which  was  so  happily  founded 
by  their  united  efforts,  can  assure  His  Swedish  Majesty,  that  nothing 
relating  hereto  has  escaped  her  attention. 

The  Empress  has  ever  been  engaged,  down  to  the  present  time,  in 
concert  with  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans,  her  co-mediator,  and  her 
co-partner,  by  his  accession  to  the  same  principles,  with  the  essential 
task  of  protecting  the  rights  of  neutral  nations ;  and  she  will  certainly 
omit  nothing,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  general  peace  between  the  bellig- 
erent Powers,  which  may  add  force  to  the  said  system,  and  render 
it  of  a  permanent  duration,  and  to  make  it  pass  over  by  the  consent 
and  accession  of  those  very  Powers  to  it.  into  a  general  law  for  all 
the  nations. 

As  for  the  rest,  the  King's  zealous  sentiments  in  favour  of  the 
same  concerns,  his  impartiality,  his  penetration,  which  are  so  well 
known  to  the  Empress,  leave  Her  Majesty  no  room  to  doubt,  that  in 
time  and  place.  His  Swedish  Majesty  will  be  pleased  to  cooperate 
with  all  his  force  towards  the  forwarding  of  the  common  cause,  and 
to  bring  it  to  a  good  and  happy  end. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  the  7th  of  September,  1782. 


Austrian  Netherlands  Ordinance  concerning  Maritime  Regulations, 

December  12,  1782^ 

Joseph,  etc.,  etc.  The  protection  that  we  have  constantly  given  to 
the  commerce  and  navigation  of  our  subjects  in  the  Netherlands  re- 
quiring that  we  have  accurate  knowledge  of  all  the  vessels  that  belong 
to  our  said  subjects  and  that  sail  under  the  flag  of  this  country,  and 
that  no  abuse  of  this  flag  be  tolerated  nor  of  ship's  registers  pertaining 
thereto,  we  have,  at  the  instance  of  our  very  dear  and  well-beloved 
sister,  Maria  Christina,  Princess  Royal  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia, 
Archduchess  of  Austria,  etc.,  etc.,  and  of  our  very  dear  and  well- 


iTranslation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  297. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  431 

beloved  brother-in-law  and  cousin,  x\Ibert  Casimir,  Prince  Royal  of 
Poland  and  Lithuania,  Duke  of  Saxe  Teschen,  etc.,  etc.,  our  Lieutenant 
Governors  and  Captains  General  of  the  Netherlands,  etc.,  ordered  and 
decreed,  and  hereby  order  and  decree  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

All  of  our  subjects  in  the  Netherlands  who  own  sea-going-  vessels 
are  required  to  furnish  a  declaration,  signed  by  them,  within  six  weeks 
after  publication  of  the  present  ordinance,  free  of  carrier's  charge,  to 
the  admiralty  office  at  Ostend,  Bruges,  or  Nieuport,  respectively,  ac- 
cording to  the  city  where  the  vessels  in  question  procured  their  ship's 
registers,  and  in  the  case  of  vessels  whose  registers  were  obtained  in 
other  cities  of  this  country,  the  declaration  shall  be  made  to  the  office 
at  Ostend.  These  declarations  must  contain  (1)  the  name  of  the 
vessel,  (2)  its  character  and  capacity  in  nautical  tons,  (3)  whether  it 
was  built  in  this  country  or  in  a  foreign  country,  and  in  the  latter 
case  indicate,  so  far  as  possible,  in  what  country  it  was  built,  where 
it  was  purchased,  and  furnish  evidence  of  the  purchase  and  present 
ownership  of  the  vessel,  (4)  the  name  of  the  captain  commanding  it, 

(5)  in  what  port  or  waters  its  owners  know  or  presume  it  now  to  be, 

(6)  the  date  and  place  where  the  ship's  register  was  procured  with 
which  the  vessel  is  furnished ;  all  this  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  200 
florins  for  every  vessel  whose  declaration  shall  not  have  been  made 
within  the  prescribed  time. 

Article  2 

With  regard  to  vessels  which  our  subjects  shall  acquire  after  the 
publication  of  the  present  ordinance,  they  shall  be  required,  before 
these  vessels  may  put  to  sea,  to  procure  registers  in  the  usual  form, 
which  must  be  certified  at  one  of  the  admiralty  offices,  at  Ostend, 
Bruges,  or  Nieuport,  respectively,  under  penalty  of  invalidity.  The 
owners  shall  at  the  same  time  deliver  a  separate  declaration,  containing 
(1)  the  name  of  the  vessel,  (2)  its  character  and  tonnage,  (3)  whether 
it  was  built  in  this  country  or  in  a  foreign  country,  indicating,  in  the 
latter  case,  in  what  country  it  was  built,  where  it  was  purchased,  pro- 
ducing evidence  of  the  purchase,  (4)  the  name  of  the  captain  who  is 
to  command  the  vessel,  (5)  in  what  port  it  is  at  present:  and  the 
certificate  shall  state  that  the  present  article  has  been  complied  with, 
all  under  the  same  penalty  decreed  in  the  preceding  article. 


432  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  3 

The  owners  of  vessels  who  shall  sell  or  transfer,  or  have  other 
persons  sell  or  transfer,  vessels  belonging  to  them,  must,  within  fifteen 
days  at  the  outside,  give  a  declaration  thereof  to  one  of  the  offices  of 
the  admiralty,  at  Ostend,  Bruges,  or  Nieuport,  respectively,  according 
to  the  city  where  the  ship's  registers  may  have  been  delivered,  and  to 
the  admiralty  office  at  Ostend,  if  the  registers  were  furnished  in  any 
other  city  of  this  country.  They  must  return  to  the  admiralty  office 
the  registers  and  other  papers  that  they  shall  receive  from  the  magis- 
trates for  the  vessels  sold  or  transferred ;  which  return  must  be  made 
at  the  same  time  as  the  declaration,  if  the  sale  or  transfer  is  made  in 
the  ports  or  places  of  this  country,  and  within  one  month,  or  other 
period  to  be  determined  by  the  admiralty  officials,  if  the  sale  is  made 
in  foreign  ports,  under  penalty  of  confiscation  of  the  value  of  the 
vessels  and  4,000  florins  fine,  one-third  of  the  amount  confiscated  and 
of  the  fine  to  go  to  the  informer. 

Article  4 

Those  who  shall  be  convicted  of  having  lent  their  name  to  conceal 
or  disguise  foreign  ownership  of  a  vessel,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by 
obtaining  registry  in  this  country,  or  those  who  shall  have  yielded,  lent, 
or  allowed  the  use  of  their  registers  for  other  vessels  than  that  for 
which  the  register  was  originally  furnished,  those  who  shall  have 
altered  or  changed  in  any  manner  whatsoever  their  registers,  those 
who,  navigating  under  the  flag  of  this  country,  shall  at  the  same  time 
be  supplied  with  and  make  use  of  a  foreign  register,  or  who  shall 
make  use  of  foreign  passes,  passports,  or  other  papers  for  their  vessel, 
shall  for  each  ofifense  be  liable  to  a  fine  of  6,000  florins,  as  well  as 
every  one  of  our  subjects  who  shall  have  cooperated  or  participated 
therein ;  and  one-third  of  this  fine  shall  be  paid  to  the  informer.  Cases 
of  this  character  previous  to  the  publication  of  this  ordinance  shall 
remain  subject  to  the  usual  penalties. 

We  decree,  etc. 

Given  in  our  city  of  Brussels  the  12th  day  of  the  month  of  December 
in  the  year  of  Grace  1782,  the  12th  of  our  reign  in  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  the  3rd  of  our  reign  in  Hungary  and  Bohemia. 

By  the  Emperor  and  King  in  Council. 

De  Reul 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  433 

Act  by  which  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  accedes  to  the  System  of 
Armed  Neutrality,  February  21,  1783^ 

Her  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  inspired  by  a  generous 
desire  to  consolidate  the  true  principles  of  the  right  of  neutrals  on  the 
sea,  calculated  to  maintain  the  freedom  of  their  navigation  and  mari- 
time commerce,  as  set  forth  in  her  declaration  of  February  28,  1780,- 
transmitted  to  the  Powers  then  at  war,  has  observed  with  the  greatest 
satisfaction  how  widely  the  successive  adhesion  of  different  Powers  to 
the  same  principles  has  extended  their  effect.  For  this  reason  and 
because  of  her  just  confidence  in  the  friendship  of  His  Sicilian  Majesty, 
she  has  determined  to  invite  him  likewise  to  strengthen  by  his  co- 
operation in  a  work  oT  so  great  importance;  and  His  said  Majesty, 
recognizing  this  action  to  be  a  mark  of  friendship  as  well  as  a  feeling 
of  just  confidence  in  him,  in  the  belief  that  the  said  principles  are 
entirely  in  accord  with  those  which  he,  like  his  august  father,  has 
constantly  followed,  ever  since  the  restoration  by  him  of  the  indepen- 
dent existence  of  the  monarchy  of  his  kingdoms,  and  such  as  they 
are  clearly  recognized  in  his  treaties  with  Sweden  in  the  year  1742,^ 
with  Denmark  in  1748,*  with  the  States-General  of  the  United  Provinces 
in  1753,^  the  only  treaties  concluded  since  the  period  when  the  said 
Kingdoms  ceased  to  belong  to  other  sovereignties,  has  not  hesitated  to 
reply  with  eagerness. 

To  this  end  Their  Majesties  have  deemed  it  wise  to  conclude  a 
formal  act,  in  which  the  said  principles  shall  be  set  forth,  and  have 
appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries,  to  wit:  Her  Imperial  Majesty 
of  all  the  Russias,  John  Count  d'Ostermann,  her  Vice  Chancellor,  Privy 
Councilor,  Senator  and  Chevalier  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Alexander- 
Newsky,  of  St.  Wladimir  of  the  First  Class,  and  of  St.  Anne  ;  Alexander 
de  Besborodka,  Major  General  of  her  Annies,  Member  of  the  College 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  Colonel  Commanding  the  Kiovia  Regiment  of 
Militia  of  Little  Russia,  Chevalier  of  the  Order  of  St.  Wladimir  of  the 
First  Class;  Pierre  de  Bacounin,  her  Councilor  of  State,  Member  of 
the  College  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Chevalier  of  the  Order  of  St.  Wladimir 
of  the  Second  Class  and  of  the  Order  of  St.  Anne ;  and  His  Majesty 


^Translation.     For  the  French   text,   see  Appendix,  p.  669.     Ratifications  ex- 
changed at  St.  Petersburg,  July  1,  1783. 
-Ante,  p.  273. 

^Treaty  of  June  3,  1742.     Wenck,  vol.  2,  p.  100. 
"Treaty  of  April  6,  1748.    Ibid.,  p.  275. 
^Treaty  of  August  27,  1753.     Ibid.,  p.  753. 


434  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  Don  Muzio  Gaeta,  Duke  of  St.  Nicholas, 
his  Gentleman  of  the  Chamber  and  his  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  the 
Imperial  Court  of  Russia;  who,  having  exchanged  their  full  powers, 
found  to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have  agreed  to  the  following 
articles : 

Article  1 

Her  Majesty  the  Empress  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  convinced  of  the  solidity  and  of  the  incon- 
testable self-evidence  of  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  aforesaid  declara- 
tion of  February  28,  1780,  which  may  be  reduced  in  substance  to  the 
five  following  points : 

( 1 )  That  neutral  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  and  merchandise  belonging  to  subjects  of  the 
Powers  at  war  shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception 
of  contraband  of  war. 

(3)  That  nothing  shall  be  considered  contraband  except  the  mer- 
chandise enumerated  in  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce 
and  navigation  conchided  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  on  June 
20,  1766.1 

(4)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  this  desig- 
nation shall  apply  only  to  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  has  sta- 
tioned a  proportionate  number  of  vessels  sufficiently  near  to  make 
access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

(5)  Finally,  that  these  principles,  which  shall  serve  as  the  rule  in 
proceedings  and  judgments  as  to  the  legality  of  prizes,  shall  not  impair 
the  force  of  treaties  now  existing  between  Their  Majesties  and  other 
Powers  but  shall  give  them  additional  force. 

Their  said  Majesties  declare  that,  not  only  do  they  fully  adhere  to 
the  same  principles,  but  that  on  all  occasions  they  will  cooperate 
efiFectually  to  maintain  them  in  their  full  force  and  eflfect,  and  will  see 
to  their  most  scrupulous  execution. 

Article  2 

In  any  war  in  which  the  high  contracting  Parties,  observing  absolute 
neutrality,  shall  not  take  part,  they  shall  see  to  the  strictest  enforce- 
ment of  the  prohibition  of  commerce  in  contraband  on  the  part  of 

'^Ante,  p.  342. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  435 

their  respective  subjects  with  any  one  whatsoever  of  the  Powers  now 
at  war,  or  which  may  hereafter  enter  into  the  war. 

Article  3 

Contraband  of  war,  in  which  commerce  neutrals  are  forbidden  to 
engag-e,  shall  be  understood  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  treaties 
existing  between  Russia  and  Great  Britain  concluded  in  1766,  as  well 
as  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  treaties  in  force  between  the 
Two  Sicilies  and  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Holland. 

Article  4 

If,  in  spite  of  all  their  care  to  this  end,  merchant  vessels  of  either 
of  the  two  Powers,  should  be  taken  or  insulted  by  any  vessels  of  the 
belligerent  Powers,  the  complaints  of  the  injured  Power  shall  be  sup- 
ported in  the  most  effectual  manner  by  the  other;  and  if  justice  should 
be  refused  on  these  complaints,  they  shall  continue  to  take  counsel 
with  each  other  as  to  the  method  best  calculated  to  secure  for  their 
subjects  full  indemnification. 

Article  5 

If  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both  of  them,  because  of  or  in  con- 
tempt of  the  present  agreement,  should  be  disturbed,  molested,  or 
attacked,  they  shall  then  make  common  cause  for  their  mutual  defense, 
and  shall  work  in  concert  so  as  to  secure  full  and  complete  satisfaction, 
both  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the  losses  caused  to  their 
subjects. 

Article  6 

These  stipulations  shall  be  considered  by  both  Parties  as  permanent 
and  as  constituting  the  rule  whenever  there  is  occasion  to  pass  upon 
the  rights  of  neutrals. 

Article  7 

The  two  Powers  shall  communicate  in  a  friendly  way  their  present 
mutual  agreement  to  all  the  European  Powers  in  general. 

Article  8 

The  present  act  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting  Parties,  and 
ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  within  four  months  from  the 
date  of  the  signing  thereof,  or  sooner  if  possible. 


436  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  plenipotentiaries,  by  virtue  of  our  full 
powers,  have  signed  and  affixed  hereto  the  seals  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  February  10,  1783.^ 

[L.S.]     Count  John  d'Ostermann 

[L.S.]     Alexander  de  Besborodka 

[L.S.]     Pierre  de  Bacounin 

[L.S.]     Muzio  Gaeta  Duke  of  St.  Nicholas 


The  Signing  of  Peace  Treaties 

[Preliminary  treaties  of  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  France, 
Great  Britain  and  Spain,  and  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  were  signed  at  Versailles,  January  20,  1783  ;  definitive  treaties 
were  signed  on  September  3,  1783.  A  preliminary  treaty  of  peace  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  Netherlands  was  signed  at  Paris,  Septem- 
ber 2,  1783;  the  definitive  treaty  was  signed  May  20,  1784.-] 


Rescript  of  the  King  of  Denmark  to  the  Magistrates  of  the  City  of 
Copenhagen  and  Other  Maritime  Cities  of  Denmark  regarding 
the  Conduct  of  His  Subjects  engaging  in  Trade  and  Naviga- 
tion during  the  Present  War,''  February  22,  1793* 

In  order  to  safeguard  our  commerce  and  navigation  during  the  war 
now  being  waged  between  dififerent  Powers,  we  have  deemed  it  neces- 
sary to  acquaint  our  subjects  with  the  rules  whose  observation  will  be 
necessary  if  they  desire  to  enjoy  during  the  war  the  security  which  the 
neutrality  of  our  flag  guarantees  in  conformity  with  our  treaties  with 
foreign  Powers,  which  we  have  ever  observed  most  strictly. 


^February  21,  1783,  new  style. 

-Annual  Register,  1782,  pp.  315,  et  seq.;  1783,  pp.  319,  322,  331,  339;  Martens, 
Recueil,  1st  cd.,  vol.  2,  p.  520. 

^P'rance  declared  war  upon  Great  Britain  and  the  Netherlands  on  February  1, 
1793.     Tlie  latter  Powers  later  joined  the  first  coalition  against  France. 

^Translation.  Ibid.,  2d  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  557.  A  similar  rescript  was  issued  on 
February  25,  1793,  for  the  cities  of  Norway.     Ibid.,  p.  561  n. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  437 

To  that  end  it  is  now  especially  necessary  that,  during  a  war,  the 
ships  of  the  subjects  of  a  neutral  Power  should  be  provided  with  sea 
passes  and  other  documents  of  a  definite  form,  and  we  therefore  de- 
sire our  first  President,  Burgomaster  and  Council  of  our  royal  resi- 
dence city  of  Copenhagen,  to  order  our  subjects  of  this  city  to  observe 
the  following  rules  until  further  notice : 

Section  1.  Those  of  our  subjects  of  this  city  who  desire  to  send 
their  ships  to  a  foreign  port  in  the  North  Sea  or  the  Atlantic  Ocean, 
or  beyond,  must,  by  observing  the  following  prescriptions,  address 
themselves  to  the  magistrate  in  order  to  secure  a  certificate  relative 
to  the  ownership  of  the  ship,  and  forthwith  request  from  our  general 
national  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Commerce  the  Latin  pass  which, 
if  nothing  of  an  untoward  nature  intervenes,  shall  be  issued  to  them 
as  soon  as  possible. 

Sec.  2.  To  secure  a  ship's  certificate  in  this  city,  those  who  apply 
for  such  certificate  must  prove  that  they  are  local  residents,  that  they 
are  the  sole  or  chief  owners  of  the  ship,  and  make  oath  in  person,  or 
by  means  of  their  autograph  signature,  that  the  ship  belongs  solely  to 
them,  or  that  they  own  it  in  common  with  other  of  our  subjects. 

Sec.  3.  Since,  according  to  the  generally  accepted  basic  principles, 
neutral  ships  are  not  permitted  to  enter  blockaded  ports,  or  to  have 
on  board  merchandise  of  a  contraband  nature  belonging  to  one  of  the 
belligerent  Powers  or  to  their  subjects,  therefore,  in  order  to  avoid 
molestation  of  our  flag  in  any  way  and  to  maintain  its  dignity,  you 
shall  earnestly  direct  our  mariners  to  conduct  themselves  in  accord- 
ance with  these  basic  principles ;  and  as  a  further  means  of  security, 
you  may  set  forth  in  the  afore-mentioned  certificate  relative  to  the 
oath  regarding  the  ownership  of  the  ship,  that  after  the  said  oath  has 
been  taken,  the  ship  has  on  board  no  contraband  destined  for  the  bel- 
ligerent Powers  or  for  their  subjects. 

Sec.  4.  In  the  term  contraband  of  war  are  included  only  firearms 
and  weapons  of  any  other  kind  such  as  cannon,  guns,  mortars,  etc., 
with  regard  to  which  the  treaties  should  be  consulted. 

Sec.  5.  In  the  term  contraband  of  war  are  not  included,  etc.  See 
the  treaties. 

Sec.  6.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  time  of  war,  the  rights  of  navi- 
gation and  commerce  of  neutral  nations  as  against  the  belligerent 
Powers  are  especially  defined  in  agreements  and  treaties,  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  treaty  of  alliance  and  commerce  with  England  of 


438  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

1670  requires  that  in  time  of  war,  a  document  regarding  the  neutrality 
be  kept  on  board ;  therefore,  in  order  to  be  able  in  all  cases  to  protect 
most  effectively  the  rights  of  our  subjects  and  to  demand  indemnifica- 
tion, if.  contrary  to  our  expectation,  they  should  be  disturbed  in  their 
licit  commerce,  we  have  ordered  that,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the 
neutral  nature  of  the  cargo,  our  subjects  shall  obtain  the  necessary 
certificates  from  the  magistrates  and  consuls  of  the  localities  where 
they  load,  and  we  therefore  direct  you  to  prepare  such  certificates  in 
conformity  with  the  model  which  you  shall  receive  from  our  general 
national  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Commerce,  and  to  deliver  them, 
upon  request,  after  they  have  been  previously  sworn  to  as  to  their 
contents. 

Sec.  7.  All  ships  of  our  subjects,  whether  built  or  purchased  within 
our  lands  or  abroad,  must,  if  they  request  Latin  passes,  be  provided 
with  a  bill  of  sale,  or  a  bill  of  purchase,  to  prove  the  ownership  of 
our  subjects.  Such  a  document  must  be  certified  by  the  authority  of 
the  locality,  and  the  captain  of  the  ship  must  have  it  on  board  for  use 
in  each  case  of  need. 

Sec.  8.  In  order  to  sail  a  ship  of  our  subjects  provided  with  the 
said  passes,  the  captain  must  be  our  subject  and  have  acquired  civic 
rights ;  he  must  have  on  board  his  letter  of  citizenship.  For  further 
insurance  that  he  will  order  nothing  done  contrary  to  these  under- 
takings, the  captain,  before  he  leaves  the  port  where  he  obtained  the 
pass,  must  make  oath  to  the  effect  that  with  his  knowledge  and  will 
it  is  not  purposed  to  misuse  the  pass  or  the  certificate,  which  oath  of 
the  captain  must  accompany  the  request  of  the  ship-owner  for  the 
pass ;  if  however  he  can  not  do  so,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  captain 
is  absent,  he  must  state  it  in  his  request,  and  upon  his  own  responsi- 
bility direct  the  captain  to  take  the  oath  before  the  authority  or  be- 
fore the  consul  of  the  foreign  locality  where  he  obtained  the  pass. 

Sec.  9.  Besides  the  afore-mentioned  documents,  the  ships  must 
further  have  the  following  papers  on  board: 

1.  A  list  of  the  crew,  attested  to  by  the  members  thereof. 

2.  The  charter-party  and  bill  of  lading  in  reference  to  the  cargo. 

3.  Bill  of  tonnage. 

4.  Receipted  bill  of  the  tax  office  of  the  locality  where  the  cargo  is 
taken  on  board. 

Sec.  10.  Ordinance  regarding  stamped  paper  for  incidental  official 
documents,  etc. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  439 

Sec.  11.  Ordinance  regarding  the  royal  dues  for  passes  and  other 
dues,  etc. 

Sec.  12.  Ordinance  regarding  the  refunding  of  dues  for  passes,  in 
case  the  pass  has  not  been  used,  etc. 

Sec.  13.  Each  pass  is  good  only  for  one  trip  which  is  regarded  as 
terminated  when  the  ship  returns  from  a  foreign  port  to  a  port  of  our 
royal  realms  and  lands.  When  the  trip  is  terminated,  the  pass  must 
be  delivered  to  the  authority  of  the  locality  which  shall  forward  it  to 
the  general  national  Board  of  Agriculture  and  Commerce. 

Sec.  14.  The  certificates  regarding  the  ships  and  cargo  shall  be 
prepared  in  Latin,  in  accordance  with  a  model  approved  by  us,  which 
you  will  obtain  from  the  general  national  Board  of  Agriculture  and 
Commerce. 

You  are  to  follow  these  presents  and  communicate  the  necessary 
information  to  those  interested. 

Given  at  our  castle.  Christiansburg,  in  our  residence  city  of  Copen- 
hagen, February  11,  1793.^ 

CHRISTIAN  R. 

schimmelmann 

Sehestaedt 

Pram 


Articles  4  and  5  of  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce  between 
Great  Britain  and  Spain,  May  25,  1793- 

Article  4 

Their  said  Majesties  engage  reciprocally  to  shut  their  ports  against 
French  vessels ;  not  to  permit  that  there  shall  in  any  case  be  exported 
from  their  ports  for  France  either  warlike  or  naval  stores,  or  wheat 
or  other  grains,  salted  meat  or  other  provisions ;  and  to  take  every 
other  measure  in  their  power  to  distress  the  trade  of  France,  and 
reduce  her  by  that  means  to  just  conditions  of  peace. 


^February  22.  1793,  new  style. 

-Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  1,  p.  14. 


440  THE  AiImED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  5 

Their  said  Majesties  also  engage,  the  present  war  being  generally- 
interesting  to  every  civilized  State,  to  unite  all  their  efforts  in  order  to 
prevent  those  Powers,  which  do  not  take  part  in  the  said  war,  from 
affording,  in  consequence  of  their  neutrality,  any  protection,  direct  or 
indirect,  on  the  seas  or  in  the  ports  of  France,  to  the  commerce  and 
property  of  the  French. 


Convention  between  Dermiark  and  Norway  and  Sweden  for  the 
common  Defence  of  the  Liberty  and  Safety  of  Danish  and 
Swedish  Commerce  and  Navigation,  March  27,  1794^ 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Sweden,  having  considered  how  much  it  imports  the  sub- 
jects of  their  realms  to  enjoy,  in  safety  and  tranquillity,  the  advan- 
tages attached  to  a  perfect  neutrality  and  founded  on  acknowledged 
treaties,  impressed  with  a  deep  sense  of  their  duties  to  their  subjects, 
and  unable  to  dissemble  the  inevitable  embarrassments  of  their  situ- 
ation in  a  war  which  rages  in  the  greater  part  of  Europe,  have  agreed 
and  do  agree  to  unite  their  measures  and  their  interests  in  this  respect, 
and  to  give  to  their  nations,  after  the  example  of  their  predecessors, 
all  the  protection  which  they  have  a  right  to  expect  from  their  paternal 
care ;  desiring,  moreover,  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  of  amity  which  so 
happily  exist  between  them,  have  nominated  to  that  effect:  His 
Danish  Majesty,  his  Minister  of  State  and  Foreign  Affairs,  the  Sieur 
Andre  Pierre  Count  Bernstorff,  Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Elephant, 
etc;  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  the  Sieur  Eric  Magnus 
Baron  Stael  de  Holstein,  Chamberlain  to  Her  Majesty  the  Queen 
Dowager  of  Sweden,  and  Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Sword,  who, 
after  having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  have  agreed  on  the  follow- 
ing articles : 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  606. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  441 

Article  1 

Their  Majesties  solemnly  declare  that  they  will  maintain  the  most 
perfect  neutrality  in  the  course  of  the  present  war ;  avoid,  in  so  far  as 
it  depends  upon  them,  whatever  may  embroil  them  with  the  Powers 
their  friends  and  allies ;  and  continue  to  sho-w  them,  as  they  have  con- 
stantly done,  in  circumstances  sometimes  difficult,  all  the  consideration, 
and  even  all  the  friendly  deference,  consistent  with  their  own  dignity. 

Article  2 

They  declare  moreover,  that  they  claim  no  advantage  which  is  not 
clearly  and  unexceptionably  founded  on  their  respective  treaties  with 
the  Powers  at  war. 

Article  3 

They  also  engage  reciprocally,  and  before  all  Europe,  that  they  will 
not  claim,  in  cases  not  specified  in  their  treaties,  any  advantage  which 
is  not  founded  on  the  universal  law  of  nations  hitherto  acknowledged 
and  respected  by  all  the  Powers  and  all  the  sovereigns  of  Europe,  and 
from  which  they  can  as  little  suppose  that  any  of  them  will  depart  as 
they  are  incapable  of  departing  from  it  themselves. 

Article  4 

Founding  the  claim  and  the  maintenance  of  their  indisputable 
rights  upon  so  just  a  basis,  they  will  give  to  the  innocent  navigation  of 
their  subjects,  which  is  entirely  within  the  rule  of,  and  conformable 
to  subsisting  treaties,  without  extending  it  to  such  as  may  depart  from 
the  rule,  all  the  protection  which  it  deserves  against  all  those  who,  con- 
trary to  their  expectation  and  their  hopes,  would  disturb  the  legal 
exercise  of  sanctioned  rights,  the  enjoyment  of  which  cannot  be 
denied  to  neutral  and  independent  nations. 

Article  5 

For  attaining  the  proposed  object.  Their  Majesties  engage  recipro- 
cally to  equip,  as  soon  as  the  season  will  permit,  each  a  squadron  of 
eight  ships  of  the  line,  with  a  proportionate  number  of  frigates,  and 
to  provide  them  with  all  necessaries. 


442  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  6 

These  squadrons  shall  unite  or  separate,  as  shall  be  judged  best  for 
the  common  interest,  which  shall  be  interpreted  on  both  sides  with  the 
amity  that  so  happily  exists  between  the  Powers. 

Article  7 

No  distinction  whatsoever  shall  be  made  between  the  interests  and 
the  flags  of  the  two  nations,  except  such  as  diflferent  subsisting  trea- 
ties with  other  nations  may  require.  Moreover,  in  all  cases  of  de- 
fense, convoy  or  others,  without  any  exception  the  Danish  ships  shall 
defend  the  Swedish  ships  and  flag,  as  if  they  were  their  own  nation, 
and  vice  versa. 

Article  8 

For  the  order  of  command,  in  all  cases  it  is  agreed  to  adopt  the 
tenor  of  Articles  6  and  7  in  the  Convention  of  July  12,  1756.^ 

Article  9 

The  German  States,  both  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  are  reciprocally 
and  entirely  excepted  from  this  convention. 

Article   10 

The  Baltic  being  always  to  be  considered  as  a  sea  closed  and  inac- 
cessible to  the  armed  ships  of  distant  Powers  at  war,  is  declared  so 
anew  by  the  contracting  Parties,  who  are  resolved  to  maintain  in  it  the 
most  perfect  tranquillity. 

Article   11 

Their  Majesties  engage  to  make  a  joint  communication  of  this  con- 
vention to  all  the  Powers  at  war,  adding  the  most  solemn  assurances 
of  their  sincere  desire  to  preserve  with  them  the  most  perfect  har- 
mony, and  to  cement,  rather  than  wound  it,  by  this  measure,  which 
tends  only  to  secure  rights  maintained  and  asserted  by  those  Powers 
themselves,  in  all  cases  where  they  were  neutral  and  at  peace,  without 
Denmark  and  Sweden  having  ever  dreamed  of  interrupting  them. 


iWenck,  vol.  3,  p.  148. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  443 

Article  12 

But  if  the  unfortunate  case  should  arise  that  any  Power,  in  con- 
tempt of  treaties  and  the  universal  law  of  nations,  will  not  respect  the 
basis  of  society  and  the  general  happiness,  and  shall  molest  the  inno- 
cent navigation  of  the  subjects  of  Their  Danish  and  Swedish  Majes- 
ties, then,  after  having  exhausted  all  possible  means  of  conciliation, 
and  made  the  most  pressing  joint  remonstrances,  in  order  to  obtain 
the  satisfaction  and  indemnity  due  to  them,  they  will  make  use  of 
reprisals  four  months,  at  the  latest,  after  the  refusal  of  their  claim, 
wherever  it  shall  be  thought  proper,  the  Baltic  always  excepted ;  and 
they  will  answer  entirely  the  one  for  the  other,  and  support  one  another 
equally,  if  either  nation  shall  be  attacked  or  injured  on  account  of 
this  convention. 

Article  13 

This  convention  shall  subsist  in  its  whole  tenor  during  the  present 
war,  unless  it  should  be  agreed  upon,  for  the  common  interest,  to  make 
any  useful  or  necessary  change  in  or  addition  to  it. 

Article  14 

The  ratification  shall  take  place  fifteen  days  after  this  convention 
shall  have  been  signed  and  exchanged.     In  testimony  of  which,  we, 
the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers,  have  signed  the  present 
convention,  and  afiixed  to  it  the  seal  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  Copenhagen,  March  27,  1794. 

A.  P.  V.  Bernstorff 

Eric  Magnus  Stael  de  Holstein 


Articles  17  and  18  of  the  Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Naviga- 
tion between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of  America, 
November  19,  1794^ 

Article  17 

It  is  agreed  that  in  all  cases  where  vessels  shall  be  captured  or  de- 
tained on  just  suspicion  of  having  on  board  enemy's  property,  or  of 

iMalloy,  vol.  1,  p.  601. 


444  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

carrying  to  the  enemy  any  of  the  articles  which  are  contraband  of  war, 
the  said  vessels  shall  be  brought  to  the  nearest  or  most  convenient 
port ;  and  if  any  property  of  an  enemy  should  be  found  on  board  such 
vessel,  that  part  only  which  belongs  to  the  enemy  shall  be  made  prize, 
and  the  vessel  shall  be  at  liberty  to  proceed  with  the  remainder  with- 
out any  impediment.  And  it  is  agreed  that  all  proper  measures  shall 
be  taken  to  prevent  delay  in  deciding  the  cases  of  ships  or  cargoes  so 
brought  in  for  adjudication,  and  in  the  payment  or  recovery  of  any 
indemnification,  adjudged  or  agreed  to  be  paid  to  the  masters  or 
owners  of  such  ships. 

Article  18 

In  order  to  regulate  what  is  in  future  to  be  esteemed  contraband  of 
war,  it  is  agreed  that  under  the  said  denomination  shall  be  comprised 
all  arms  and  implements  serving  for  the  purposes  of  war,  by  land  or 
sea,  such  as  cannon,  muskets,  mortars,  petards,  bombs,  grenades,  car- 
casses, saucisses,  carriages  for  cannon,  musket-rests,  bandoliers,  gun- 
powder, match,  saltpetre,  ball,  pikes,  swords,  head-pieces,  cuirasses, 
halberts,  lances,  javelins,  horse-furniture,  holsters,  belts,  and  generally 
all  other  implements  of  war,  as  also  timber  for  ship-building,  tar  or 
rozin.  copper  in  sheets,  sails,  hemp,  and  cordage,  and  generally  what- 
ever may  serve  directly  to  the  equipment  of  vessels,  unwrought  iron 
and  fir  planks  only  excepted ;  and  all  the  above  articles  are  hereby 
declared  to  be  just  objects  of  confiscation  whenever  they  are  attempted 
to  be  carried  to  an  enemy. 

And  whereas  the  difficulty  of  agreeing  on  the  precise  cases  in  which 
alone  provisions  and  other  articles  not  generally  contraband  may  be 
regarded  as  such,  renders  it  expedient  to  provide  against  the  incon- 
veniences and  misunderstandings  which  might  thence  arise :  It  is 
further  agreed  that  whenever  any  such  articles  so  becoming  contra- 
band, according  to  the  existing  laws  of  nations,  shall  for  that  reason 
be  seized,  the  same  shall  not  be  confiscated,  but  the  owners  thereof 
shall  be  speedily  and  completely  indemnified ;  and  the  captors,  or,  in 
their  default,  the  Government  under  whose  authority  they  act,  shall 
pay  to  the  masters  or  owners  of  such  vessels  the  full  value  of  all  such 
articles,  with  a  reasonable  mercantile  profit  thereon,  together  with  the 
freight,  and  also  the  demurrage  incident  to  such  detention. 

And  whereas  it  frequently  happens  that  vessels  sail  for  a  port  or 
place  belonging  to  an  enemy  without  knowing  that  the  same  is  either 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  445 

besieged,  blockaded  or  invested,  it  is  agreed  that  every  vessel  so  cir- 
cumstanced may  be  turned  away  from  such  port  or  place ;  but  she  shall 
not  be  detained,  nor  her  cargo,  if  not  contraband,  be  confiscated,  un- 
less after  notice  she  shall  again  attempt  to  enter,  but  she  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  go  to  any  other  port  or  place  she  may  think  proper ;  nor 
shall  any  vessel  or  goods  of  either  party  that  may  have  entered  into 
such  port  or  place  before  the  same  was  besieged,  blockaded,  or  in- 
vested by  the  other,  and  be  found  therein  after  the  reduction  or  sur- 
render of  such  place,  be  liable  to  confiscation,  but  shall  be  restored  to 
the  owners  or  proprietors  there. 


Articles  10,  11  and  12  of  the  Treaty  of  Navigation  and  Commerce 
between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  February  21,  1797^ 

Article  10 

It  shall  be  permitted  to  the  high  contracting  Parties  to  go,  come, 
and  trade  freely  in  the  States  with  which  the  one  or  the  other  of  those 
parties  shall  be,  in  present  or  in  future,  at  war,  provided  that  they  do 
not  carry  ammunition  to  the  enemy :  with  the  exception,  nevertheless, 
of  places  actually  blockaded  or  besieged,  whether  by  sea  or  land;  but 
at  all  other  times,  and  with  the  exception  of  warlike  ammunition,  the 
subjects  aforesaid  may  transport  into  those  places  every  other  sort  of 
merchandise,  as  well  as  passengers,  without  the  smallest  hindrance. 
With  respect  to  the  searching  of  merchant  ships,  ships  of  war  and 
privateers  shall  conduct  themselves  as  favourably  as  the  course  of  the 
war  then  existing  may  possibly  permit  it  towards  the  most  friendly 
Powers  which  shall  remain  neuter,  observing,  as  much  as  possible,  the 
acknowledged  principles  and  rules  of  the  law  of  nations. 

Article  11 

All  cannons,  mortars,  firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  balls,  bul- 
lets, muskets,  flints,  matches,  powder,  saltpetre,  sulphur,  cutlasses, 
pikes,  swords,  belts,  cartouch-boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  beyond  the 
quantity  which  may  be  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  ship,  or  beyond 
that  which  each  man  serving  on  board  the  vessel,  or  passenger,  shall 


iFebruary  10,  1797,  old  style.     Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  6,  p.  x. 


446  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

have,  shall  be  esteemed  warlike  provisions  or  ammunition ;  and  if  any 
are  found,  they  shall  be  confiscated,  according  to  the  laws,  as  contra- 
band or  prohibited  effects ;  but  neither  the  ships,  passengers,  nor  the 
other  merchandise  found  at  the  same  time,  shall  be  detained  or  pre- 
vented from  continuing  their  voyage. 

Article  12 

If,  which  God  forbid,  peace  should  be  broken  between  the  two  high 
contracting  Parties,  neither  persons,  ships,  nor  merchandise,  shall  be 
detained  or  confiscated ;  but  the  term  of  a  year  at  least  shall  be  granted, 
for  the  purpose  of  selling,  disposing  of,  or  carrying  away  their  effects, 
and  withdrawing  themselves  wherever  they  shall  please,  which  is  to  be 
understood  equally  respecting  all  those  who  shall  be  in  the  sea  and 
land  service;  and  they  shall  be  permitted,  previous  to  or  at  their  de- 
parture, to  consign  the  effects  of  which  they  shall  not  have  disposed, 
as  well  as  the  debts  to  which  they  may  have  a  claim,  to  such  person 
as  they  shall  judge  proper,  to  be  disposed  of  according  to  their  will 
and  profit ;  which  debts  the  debtor  shall  equally  be  obliged  to  pay  as 
if  the  rupture  had  not  taken  place. 


The  Case  of  The  Maria^ 

The  Maria,  Paulsen,  master- 
June  11,  1799 

A  vessel  sailing  under  convoy  of  an  armed  ship,  for  the  purpose  of 
resisting  visitation  and  search,  condemned 

This  was  the  leading  case  of  a  fleet  of  Swedish  merchantmen,  carry- 
ing pitch,  tar,  hemp,  deals  and  iron,  to  several  ports  of  France,  Por- 
tugal, and  the  Mediterranean,  and  taken,  January,  1798,  sailing  under 
convoy  of  a  ship  of  war,  and  proceeded  against  for  resistance  of  visi- 
tation and  search  by  British  cruisers. 

11  C.  Robinson,  .340. 

^Affirmed  on  appeal,  July  2d,  1802. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  447 

In  December,  1797,  this  case  coming  on  to  be  argued  on  the  original 
evidence,  the  court  directed  farther  information  to  be  given  by  both 
parties,  respecting  the  precise  acts  that  took  place  at  the  time  of  cap- 
ture, the  instructions  under  which  the  convoyed  ships  were  sailing,  and 
also  the  instructions  to  the  Swedish  frigate. 

On  a  subsequent  day  this  information  being  produced,  it  was  again 
argued  at  much  length. 

On  the  part  of  the  captors,  the  King's  Advocate  and  Arnold,  in  sub- 
stance contended,  if  the  case  of  this  ship  and  cargo  were  to  be  con- 
sidered singly,  and  separated  from  the  principal  question  of  convoy, 
there  are  many  circumstances  attending  it  of  a  very  noxious  aspect. 
It  was  going  on  an  asserted  destination  to  Genoa,  at  a  time  when  that 
port  was  become  almost  a  hostile  port,  by  its  subserviency  to  all  the 
purposes  of  the  French  marine,  whilst  our  ships  and  cruisers  were 
absolutely  excluded.  It  was  going  under  the  certificate  of  the  French 
consul,  in  compliance  with  the  unjust  decree  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment,^ and  the  articles  of  which  the  cargo  consisted,  were  articles  of 
a  contraband  nature.  It  is  true  they  are  such  articles  as  the  Swedes 
are  now  permitted  to  carry  in  time  of  war,  under  certain  circum- 
stances, but  only  under  a  strict  observance  of  good  faith,  a  conduct 
perfectly  neutral,  and  in  all  cases  subject  to  a  right  of  preemption  on 
the  part  of  a  belligerent  nation.  And  farther,  the  truth  of  this  as- 
serted destination  to  Genoa  is  exposed  to  great  suspicion  from  the 
discretionary  power  with  which  the  master  was  intrusted,  of  going 
elscAvhere. 

These  are  circumstances  unfavorable  in  themselves ;  but  they  assume 
a  more  distinct  hostile  character  from  the  circumstance  of  being  taken 
sailing  under  the  protection  of  an  armed  force,  and  associated  for  the 
pvirpose  of  resisting  visitation  and  search  from  the  cruisers  of  this  coun- 
try. The  act  of  resistance  to  the  lawful  rights  of  search,  is  the  ground 
on  which  it  is  principally  contended  that  this  case  is  subject  to  con- 


^Decree,  18th  January,  1797.  "L'etat  des  navires  en  ce  qui  concerne  leur 
qualite  de  neutre  ou  d'ennemi  sera  determine  par  leur  cargaison ;  en  consequence 
tout  batiment  trouve  en  mer,  charge  en  tout  ou  en  partie  de  marchandises 
provenant  d'Angleterre,  ou  de  ses  possessions,  sera  declare  de  bonne  prise, 
quelque  soit  le  proprietaire  de  ces  denrees  ou  marchandises."  See  Atcheson's 
Report  of  a  Case  in  King's  Bench,  Appendix,  p.  155,  where  the  reader  will  see 
the  late  regulations  of  the  French  Government  in  matters  of  prize. 

In  consequence  of  this  decree,  all  neutrals  were  required  to  take  a  certificate 
from  the  French  consuls  that  their  goods  were  not  of  British  produce  or  manu- 
facture. 


448  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

fiscation.  For  although  this  fact  may  receive  color  and  complexion 
of  a  more  hostile  nature  from  other  circumstances,  it  is  alone  sufficient 
to  incur  the  penalty  of  confiscation.  The  right  of  visitation  and  search 
in  time  of  war,  even  in  the  most  innoxious  cases,  is  an  established 
right  of  belligerent  Powers,  acknowledged  and  referred  to  in  the 
treaties  of  the  States  of  Europe.  It  is  admitted  by  all  speculative 
writers  on  the  law  of  nations.  Bynkershoek  expressly  admits  it  in 
these  words :  "Velim  animadvertas,  eatenus  utique  licitum  esse  amicani 
navem  sistere,  ut  non  ex  fallaci  forte  aplustri,  sed  ex  ipsis  instrumentis 
in  navi  repertis  constet,  navem  amicam  esse."^  And  VatteP  acknowl- 
edges the  penalty  attending  the  contravention  of  this  right  by  neutral 
ships  to  be  confiscation.  Even  in  cases  where  it  is  possible  this  right 
may  be  wrongfully  exercised  b}'  cruisers,  resistance  is  not  the  legal 
remedy,  as  there  is  a  regular  and  effectual  remedy,  provided  by  all  the 
maritime  codes  of  Europe,  in  the  responsibility  which  cruisers  lie 
under  to  make  compensation  for  any  injurious  exercise  of  their  right, 
in  costs  and  damages.  These  principles  being  admitted,  as  they  were 
indeed  admitted  in  the  former  hearing,  it  becomes  a  question  of  fact, 
whether  there  was  that  hostile  resistance  that  will  subject  the  parties 
to  the  penalty  of  confiscation.  On  this  point  it  is  submitted  that  the 
instructions  of  the  Swedish  Government  to  the  commander  of  this 
convoy^  lay  upon  him  as  a  positive  injunction  to  prevent  search  by  all 
possible  means,  and  "that  violence  must  be  opposed  by  violence." 
These  are  carried  into  execution  by  the  sailing  orders,*  which  forbade 

iLib.  i,  ch.  14.  2Lib.  iii.  §114. 

^Instructions  to  the  Commander: 

"In  case  the  Lieutenant  Colonel  should  meet  with  any  ships  of  war  of  other 
nations,  one  or  more  of  any  fleet  wloatever,  then  the  Lieutenant  Colonel  is  to 
treat  them  with  all  possible  friendship,  and  not  give  any  occasion  of  enmity ;  but 
if  you  meet  with  any  foreign  armed  vessel,  which  on  speaking  should  be  de- 
sirous of  having  still  farther  assurance  that  your  frigate  belongs  to  the  King 
of  Sweden,  then  the  Lieutenant  Colonel  is,  by  the  Swedish  flag  and  salute,  to 
make  them  know  that  it  is  so ;  or  if  they  would  make  any  search  among  the 
merchant  ships  which  are  under  your  convoy,  which  ought  to  be  endeavored  to 
be  prevented  as  much  as  possible,  then  the  Lieutenant  Colonel  is,  in  case  such 
thing  should  be  insisted  on,  and  that  remonstrances  could  not  be  amicably  made, 
and  that  notwithstanding  your  amicable  portment,  the  merchant  ships  shall  be 
nevertheless  violently  attacked,  then  violence  must  be  opposed  against  violence." 

^Sailing  Instructions  to  the  Merchantmen: 

"All  merchantmen  ships,  during  the  time  they  are  under  convoy  of  His 
Majesty's  ships,  frigates,  or  sloops,  are  forbidden  to  suff^er  the  boats  of  any 
foreign  nation  to  board  them  for  the  sake  of  visitation  or  searching,  but  in 
case  such  boats  show  an  intention  to  come  alongside,  the  merchant  ships  are  to 
sheer  off  from  them." 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  449 

their  merchantmen  "to  submit  to  search ;  but  if  any  boat  attempted  to 
come  alongside,  to  sheer  off  from  them."  It  is  still  farther  carried 
into  effect  by  all  that  passed  at  the  time ;  and  more  especially  by  the 
act  of  forcibly  removing  an  ofiicer  who  had  taken  possession  of  one 
ship,  and  carrying  him  on  board  the  frigate.  And  it  is  again  confirmed 
by  the  regret  which  the  commander  expressed  that  he  had  not  fired, 
protesting,  "that  if  the  ships  had  not  been  seized  at  night  he  would 
have  resisted." 

For  the  claimants,  Laurence  and  Swahey.  The  original  importance 
of  this  question,  great  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  has  been  very  materially 
increased  by  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  brought  on. 

The  claimants  have  reason  to  complain  that  every  thing  has  been 
brought  forward  ex  parte  by  the  captors.  The  instructions  of  the 
Swedish  commander  are  produced  in  an  unauthenticated  form,  and 
introduced  only  under  a  note  from  the  under  Secretary  of  State.  It 
is  not  proved  that  they  were  the  whole  of  the  instructions.  It  must, 
therefore,  rest  with  the  court  to  say  how  far  they  are  sufficiently  au- 
thenticated. The  instructions  under  which  the  English  commander 
acted  have  been  altogether  withheld.  On  the  part  of  the  claimant's 
evidence,  the  officer  of  the  Swedish  frigate  has  been  sent  away  to 
render  an  account  to  his  own  Government,  and  by  that  means  the 
parties  are  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  his  evidence.  Under  these  dis- 
advantages, however,  it  is  still  to  be  contended  that  there  has  been  no 
act  of  hostility  committed  against  this  country.  There  is  no  disposi- 
tion to  assert  a  right  on  the  part  of  neutral  merchant  ships  to  resist 
visitation  and  search  by  the  cruisers  of  a  belligerent  State.  It  is  not 
to  be  argued,  undoubtedly,  that  neutrals  have  a  right  in  all  cases  to 
resist  search.  If  such  a  speculative  doctrine  is  asserted  by  any  States, 
it  is  for  them  to  maintain  it.  In  the  present  case  we  stand  upon  no 
such  position,  but  upon  something  which  appears  to  have  been  over- 
looked— a  treaty  on  this  important  question  of  search  between  the  two 
countries.  Treaty  between  England  and  Sweden,  1661,  Article  12. 
After  an  express  treaty,  it  is  not  allowable  to  presume  any  thing  con- 
trary to  that  compact  on  the  part  of  the  other  State,  nor  to  argue  on 
general  principles  to  defeat  the  force  of  the  obligation  arising  from  it 
on  our  part.  Search  is  by  this  treaty  to  be  exercised  only  on  a  refusal 
to  produce  the  certificates  or  ship's  papers ;  in  no  other  case  is  it  justi- 
fiable.    And  although  a  strong  suspicion  might  still   justify  a  seizure 


450  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

under  the  responsibility  of  costs  and  damages ;  still,  in  the  manner  of 
making  this  seizure  (and  the  whole  of  this  case  rests  on  the  course  of 
the  proceedings),  if  we  did  not  proceed  in  the  manner  in  which  we 
ought  to  have  done,  there  is  an  end  of  our  right  under  the  compact ; 
and  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  impute  any  thing  that  ensued  in  conse- 
quence of  our  own  irregularity,  as  an  act  of  aggression  against  the 
other  party.  These  are  the  principles  on  which  it  is  intended  to  sup- 
port the  present  claim.  Originally,  and  in  its  natural  appearance,  this 
convoy  is  to  be  considered  as  a  neutral  convoy;  and  therefore  it  lies 
on  the  captor  to  show  by  some  act  that  there  was  a  departure  from 
neutrality;  for  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  a  mere  intention  (if  it  were 
proved)  would  be  sufficient,  under  any  system  of  law,  to  incur  the 
penalty  of  an  actual  offence.  It  seemed  to  be  admitted  by  the  court 
on  a  former  day,  that  there  was  just  distinction  to  be  made  between 
two  cases  of  convoy — between  a  convoy  of  an  enemy's  force  and  a 
neutral  convoy.  The  former  would  stamp  a  primary  character  of 
hostility  on  all  ships  sailing  under  its  protection ;  and  it  would  rest 
with  the  parties  to  take  themselves  out  of  the  presumption  raised 
against  them.  But  that  it  would  be,  even  in  that  case,  nothing  more 
than  a  presumption,  is  determined  by  a  late  case  before  the  Lords, — 
The  Sampson  Barney,  an  asserted  American  armed  ship,  sailing  with 
French  cruisers  at  the  time  they  engaged  some  English  ships,  and 
communicating  with  the  French  ships  by  signal  for  battle.  In  that 
case,  although  there  had  been  a  condemnation  below,  the  Lords  sent 
it  to  farther  proof,  to  ascertain  whether  there  had  been  an  actual  re- 
sistance. 

[Court.  I  do  not  admit  the  authority  of  that  case  to  the  extent 
you  push  it.  That  question  is  still  reserved,  although  the  Lords  might 
wish  to  know  as  much  of  the  facts  as  possible.] 

In  the  other  case  of  a  neutral  convoy,  there  is  no  presumption  of  a 
hostile  character  arising  from  it,  and  therefore  it  remains  with  the 
captors  to  show  that  there  was  an  actual  resistance  in  this  case.  Com- 
ing then  to  the  question  of  fact,  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  kept 
constantly  in  view,  and  remembering  that  when  there  is  a  treaty  regu- 
lating the  mode  and  manner  of  proceeding,  both  parties  are  bound  to 
proceed  accordingly,  and  that  any  presumptions  which  are  raised, 
should  proceed  upon  the  words  of  that  compact,  and  not  depart  from 
it,  where  will  the  captors  find  any  actual  resistance  in  the  conduct  of 
these  parties? 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  451 

The  instructions  are  relied  upon,  but  they  are  general,  and  do  not 
any  more  than  the  other  circumstances  preceding  or  attending  this 
transaction,  point,  in  any  degree,  to  a  resistance  towards  this  country. 
It  is  notorious,  that  at  the  time  of  passing  the  French  decree  against 
English  merchandise,  which  is  deservedly  reprobated  on  all  sides,  the 
Swedish  merchants  did  apply  for  a  protection  of  this  kind ;  and  there- 
fore the  probability  is  at  least  as  great,  that  it  was  intended  to  protect 
them  against  French  cruisers  as  against  this  country.  The  directions 
are,  "to  observe  an  amicable  deportment ;  but  that  violence  must  be 
opposed  by  violence"  ;  expressions  on  which  it  will  not  be  fair  to  put 
any  other  construction  than  what  is  compatible  with  the  provisions  of 
the  treaty,  or  to  suppose  that  they  meant  more  than  that  the  stipula- 
tions of  the  treaty  were  to  be  faithfully  maintained. 

What  passed  then  at  the  time?  Was  there  any  thing  like  actual 
personal  resistance  ?  Certainly  not.  From  the  evidence  of  M'Dougal, 
it  appears  that  there  was  nothing  like  an  hostile  appearance  shown 
towards  the  Wolverine,  till  after  four  days  had  passed  in  discussion 
between  the  commanders.  The  Swedish  commander  had  a  right  to 
expect  to  have  been  first  addressed ;  under  the  treaty  the  certificates 
should  have  been  demanded.  If  not  produced,  the  ships  might  have 
been  searched;  and,  on  strong  suspicion,  seizure  might  have  been 
made.  But  the  question  is,  have  the  captors  proceeded  in  this  way? 
If,  in  opposition  to  this  they  have  at  once  superseded  all  forms  and 
said,  we  seize  and  detain,  the  matter  assumes  a  different  aspect,  and 
we  have  no  right  to  exact  a  rigid  observance  of  form  on  the  other 
side.  On  descrying  the  convoy,  what  was  done  on  the  part  of  the 
captors?  It  was  on  that  side  that  the  first  appearance  of  menace  was 
shown.  The  English  ships  immediately  beat  to  quarters ;  the  destina- 
tion is  inquired  of,  and  an  answer  given ;  but  there  is  no  demand  for 
papers ;  no  attempt  to  search.  Captain  Law  ford  states,  that,  as  a  meas- 
ure of  prudence,  he  sent  immediately  to  the  Admiralty  for  particular 
instruction,  and  received  orders  to  detain  the  convoy.  On  the  first 
interview,  the  Swedish  commander  immediately  communicated  his  in- 
structions with  the  greatest  readiness ;  from  which  it  appears,  that,  in 
his  opinion,  they  contained  nothing  hostile  to  this  country.  The  re- 
moval of  a  petty  officer,  that  has  been  relied  on  as  act  of  resistance, 
was  more  a  matter  of  form  than  actual  opposition,  used  as  a  sort  of 
protest  against  the  irregular  proceeding  of  the  captors,  and  did  not 
for  a  moment  retard  the  actual  delivery  of  possession  on  the  part  of 


452  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  merchantmen.  The  subsequent  acts  show  still  more  strongly  how 
little  the  acts  of  the  captors  were  directed  by  the  treaty ;  and  how  little 
they  themselves  thought  that  any  penalty  of  prize  had  accrued  to  them 
by  this  circumstance  of  convoy.  Instead  of  the  usual  demand  for 
the  ship's  papers  in  the  first  instance,  they  were  not  demanded  till 
August.  They  were  afterwards  returned  to  one  vessel,  and  an  offer 
was  made  to  all  those  bound  to  neutral  ports  to  depart ;  but  they  re- 
fusing to  go  without  some  compensation  for  detention,  proceedings 
were  then  instituted  for  the  first  time,  on  the  principle  of  convoy — a 
principle  which  cannot  now  come  into  discussion,  owing  to  the  irregu- 
lar proceedings  of  the  captors ;  and  which,  besides,  cannot  fairly  be 
enforced  against  the  merchantmen,  by  this  court,  whilst  the  Govern- 
ment has  permitted  the  frigate  to  depart,  and  has  declined  to  consider 
the  act  of  the  commander  as  an  act  of  hostility  against  the  State.  On 
these  grounds,  and  adverting  to  former  practice,  in  which  some  in- 
stances occur  of  restitution  of  ships  taken  under  convoy,  whilst  no 
precedents  of  condemnation  on  this  principle  are  adduced,  it  is  sub- 
mitted that  the  claimants  have  done  nothing  to  forfeit  their  neutral 
character,  and  are  therefore  entitled  to  restitution. 

Judgment. 

Sir  W.  Scott.  This  ship  was  taken  in  the  British  channel,  in  com- 
pany with  several  other  Swedish  vessels  sailing  under  convoy  of  a 
Swedish  frigate,  having  cargoes  of  naval  stores  and  other  produce  of 
Sweden  on  board,  by  a  British  squadron  under  the  command  of  Com- 
modore Lawford. 

The  facts  attending  the  capture  did  not  sufficiently  appear  to  the 
court  upon  the  original  evidence ;  it  therefore  directed  further  infor- 
mation to  be  supplied,  and  by  both  parties. 

The  additional  information  now  brought  in  consists  of  several  at- 
testations made  on  the  part  of  the  captors,  and  of  a  copy  of  the 
instructions  under  which  the  Swedish  frigate  sailed,  transmitted  to  the 
Foreign  Department.  On  the  part  of  the  Swedes  some  attestations 
King's  proctor  from  the  office  of  the  British  Secretary  of  State  for  the 
and  certificates  have  been  introduced,  but  all  of  them  applying  to  col- 
lateral matter,  none  relating  immediately  to  the  facts  of  the  capture. 
On  this  evidence  the  court  has  to  determine  this  most  important  ques- 
tion ;  for  its  importance  is  very  sensibly  felt  by  the  court.  I  have, 
therefore,  taken  some  time  to  weigh  the  matter  maturely;  T  should 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  453 

regret  much,  if  that  delay  has  produced  any  private  inconvenience ;  but 
I  am  not  conscious  (attending  to  the  numerous  other  weighty  causes 
that  daily  press  upon  the  attention  of  the  court),  that  I  have  inter- 
posed more  time  in  forming  my  judgment  than  was  fairly  due  to  the 
importance  of  the  question,  and  to  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  in- 
volved in  it. 

In  forming  that  judgment,  I  trust  that  it  has  not  escaped  my  anxious 
recollection  for  one  moment,  what  it  is  that  the  duty  of  my  station 
calls  for  from  me ;  namely,  to  consider  myself  as  stationed  here,  not 
to  deliver  occasional  and  shifting  opinions  to  serve  present  purposes 
of  particular  national  interest,  but  to  administer  with  indifference  that 
justice  which  the  law  of  nations  holds  out,  without  distinction,  to  in- 
dependent States,  some  happening  to  be  neutral  and  some  to  be  bellig- 
erent. The  seat  of  judicial  authority  is,  indeed,  locally  here,  in  the 
belligerent  country,  according  to  the  known  law  and  practice  of  na- 
tions ;  but  the  law  itself  has  no  locality.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  person 
who  sits  here  to  determine  this  question  exactly  as  he  would  determine 
the  same  question  if  sitting  at  Stockholm;  to  assert  no  pretensions  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain  which  he  would  not  allow  to  Sweden  in  the 
same  circumstances,  and  to  impose  no  duties  on  Sweden,  as  a  neutral 
country,  which  he  would  not  admit  to  belong  to  Great  Britain  in  the 
same  character.  If.  therefore,  I  mistake  the  law  in  this  matter,  I 
mistake  that  which  I  consider,  and  which  I  mean  should  be  considered, 
as  the  universal  law  upon  the  question ;  a  question  regarding  one  of  the 
most  important  rights  of  belligerent  nations  relatively  to  neutrals. 

The  only  special  consideration  which  I  shall  notice  in  favor  of  Great 
Britain  (and  which  I  am  entirely  desirous  of  allowing  to  Sweden  in 
the  same  or  similar  circumstances)  is,  that  the  nature  of  the  present 
war  does  give  this  country  the  rights  of  war,  relatively  to  neutral 
States,  in  as  large  a  measure  as  they  have  been  regularly  and  legally 
exercised,  at  any  period  of  modern  and  civilized  times.  Whether  I 
estimate  the  nature  of  the  war  justly,  I  leave  to  the  judgment  of  Eu- 
rope, when  I  declare  that  I  consider  this  as  a  war  in  which  neutral 
States  themselves  have  an  interest  much  more  direct  and  substantial 
than  they  have  in  the  ordinary,  limited,  and  private  quarrels  (if  I  may 
so  call  them)  of  Great  Britain  and  its  great  public  enemy.  That  I 
have  a  right  to  advert  to  such  considerations,  provided  it  be  done  with 
sobriety  and  truth,  cannot.  I  think,  reasonably  be  doubted ;  and  if  au- 
thority is  required,  I  have  authority — and  not  the  less  weighty  in  this 


454  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

question  for  being  Swedish  authority — I  mean  the  opinion  of  that  dis- 
tinguished person,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  which  that  country 
(fertile  as  it  has  been  of  eminent  men)  has  ever  produced;  I  mean 
Baron  Puflrendorff.^  The  passage  to  which  I  allude  is  to  be  found  in 
a  note  of  Barbeyrac's,  on  his  larger  work,  L.  viii.  c.  6,  s.  8.  Puffendorff 
had  been  consulted  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  when  En- 
gland and  other  States  were  engaged  in  the  confederacy  against  Louis 
XIV,  by  a  lawyer,  upon  the  continent,  Groningius,  who  was  desirous 
of  supporting  the  claims  of  neutral  commerce,  in  a  treatise  which  he 
was  then  projecting.  Puffendorff  concludes  his  answer  to  him  in  these 
words : 

I  am  not  surprised  that  the  northern  Powers  should  consult  the 
general  interest  of  all  Europe,  without  regard  to  the  complaints 
of  some  greedy  merchants,  who  care  not  how  things  go,  provided 
they  can  but  satisfy  their  thirst  of  gain.  These  princes  wisely 
judge  that  it  would  not  become  them  to  take  precipitate  meas- 
ures, whilst  other  nations  are  combining  their  whole  force  to  re- 
duce within  bounds  an  insolent  and  exorbitant  power  which 
threatens  Europe  with  slavery,  and  the  Protestant  religion  with 
destruction.  This  being  the  interest  of  the  northern  Crowns 
themselves,  it  is  neither  just  nor  necessary  that,  for  the  present 
advantage,  they  should  interrupt  so  salutary  a  design,  especially 
as  they  are  at  no  expense  in  the  affair,  and  run  no  hazard. 

In  the  opinion,  then,  of  this  wise  and  virtuous  Swede,  the  nature  and 
purpose  of  a  war  was  not  entirely  to  be  omitted  in  the  consideration 
of  the  warrantable  exercise  of  its  rights,  relatively  to  neutral  States. 
His  words  are  memorable.  I  do  not  overrate  their  importance,  when 
I  pronounce  them  to  be  well  entitled  to  the  attention  of  his  country. 
It  might  likewise  be  improper  for  me  to  pass  entirely  without  notice, 
as  another  preliminary  observation  (though  without  meaning  to  lay 
any  particular  stress  upon  it),  that  the  transaction  in  question  took 
place  in  the  British  channel,  close  upon  the  British  coast,  a  station 
over  which  the  Crown  of  England  has,  from  pretty  remote  antiquity, 
always  asserted  something  of  that  special  jurisdiction  which  the  sov- 
ereigns of  other  countries  have  claimed  and  exercised  over  certain 
parts  of  the  seas  adjoining  to  their  coasts. 


1  Puffendorff  was  not  actually  born  in  Sweden,  but  is  usually  claimed  and  al- 
lowed as  a  writer  of  that  country,  from  his  employment  in  it  under  the  King 
of  Sweden.  The  great  work  on  which  his  fame  is  principally  built,  was  given 
to  the  world  during  his  residence  in  that  country. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  455 

In  considering  the  case,  I  think  it  will  be  advisable  for  me,  first,  to 
state  the  facts  as  they  appear  in  the  evidence ;  secondly,  to  lay  down 
the  principles  of  law  which  apply  generally  to  such  a  state  of  facts ; 
thirdly,  to  examine  whether  any  special  circumstances  attended  the 
transaction  in  any  part  of  it,  which  ought  in  any  manner  or  degree  to 
affect  the  application  of  these  principles. 

The  facts  of  the  capture  are  to  be  learnt  only  from  the  captors,  for, 
as  I  have  observ'ed,  the  claimants  have  been  entirely  silent  about  them, 
and  that  silence  gives  the  strongest  confirmation  to  the  truth  of  the 
accounts  delivered  by  the  captors. 

The  attestation  of  Captain  Lawford  introduces  and  verifies  his  log- 
book, in  which  it  is  stated,  that  after  the  meeting  of  the  fleets  he  sent 
an  officer  on  board  the  frigate  to  inquire  about  the  cargoes  and  destina- 
tion of  the  merchantmen,  and  was  answered,  "that  they  were  Swedes 
bound  to  different  ports  in  the  Mediterranean,  laden  with  hemp,  iron, 
pitch,  and  tar."  Upon  doubts  which  Captain  Lawford  entertained  re- 
specting the  conduct  he  should  hold  in  a  situation  of  some  delicacy, 
he  despatched  immediately  a  messenger  to  the  Admiralty,  keeping  the 
convoy  in  his  view ;  and  having  received  orders  from  the  Admiralty 
by  the  return  of  his  messenger  to  detain  these  merchant  ships  and 
carry  them  into  the  nearest  English  port,  he  sent  Sir  Charles  Lindsay, 
and  Captain  Raper  to  communicate  them  in  the  civilest  terms  to  the 
Swedish  commodore,  who  showed  his  instructions  to  repel  force  by 
force  if  any  attempt  was  made  to  board  the  convoy,  and  declared  that 
he  should  defend  them  to  the  last.  The  crew  of  the  Swedish  frigate 
were  immediately  at  quarters,  matches  lighted,  and  every  preparation 
made  for  an  obstinate  resistance ;  and  the  signal  was  made  on  board 
the  British  squadron  to  prepare  for  battle.  In  the  night,  possession 
was  taken  of  most  of  the  vessels,  the  Swedish  frigate  making  many 
movements,  which  were  narrowly  watched  by  The  Roniney,  keeping 
close  under  his  lee.  lower  deck  guns  run  out,  and  every  man  at  his 
quarters.  In  the  morning  the  Swedish  frigate  hoisted  out  an  armed 
boat,  and  sent  on  board  one  of  the  vessels  which  had  been  taken  pos- 
session of,  and  took  out  by  force  the  British  officer  who  had  been  left 
on  board,  and  carried  him  on  board  the  frigate,  where  he  was  detained. 
The  Swedish  commander  sent  an  officer  of  his  own  on  board.  Captain 
Lawford.  to  complain  that  he  had  taken  advantage  of  the  night  to  get 
possession  of  his  convoy,  which  was  unobserved  by  him,  or  he  should 
assuredly  have  defended  them  to  the  last.     Upon  further  conference 


456  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  representation  of  the  impracticability  of  resistance  to  such  a 
superior  force,  he  at  length  agreed  to  go  into  Margate  Roads,  and 
returned  the  British  officer  who  had  been  taken  out  and  detained  on 
board  the  frigate.  After  the  arrival  in  Margate  Roads  he  lamented 
that  he  had  not  exchanged  broadsides ;  said  that  he  did  not  consider 
his  convoy  as  detained,  and  should  resist  any  further  attempt  to  take 
possession  of  them. 

Captain  Raper  states,  that  on  going  on  board  the  Swedish  frigate, 
he  found  all  the  men  at  their  quarters,  and  the  ship  clear  for  action ; 
that  the  commodore  showed  his  orders  and  expressed  his  firm  deter- 
mination to  carry  them  into  execution.  Captain  Lawford  sent  a  boat 
with  an  officer  on  board  several  of  the  convoy,  to  desire  they  would 
follow  into  Margate  Roads ;  their  answer  was,  they  would  obey  no  one 
but  their  own  commodore. 

Lieutenant  ^T'Dougal  describes  in  like  terms  tlie  menacing  appear- 
ance and  motions  of  the  Swedish  frigate.  He  was  sent  to  take  pos- 
session of  vessels  which  would  not  bring-to  without  firing  at  them. 
On  his  going  on  board  one  of  them,  the  master  declared  that  he  had 
orders  from  his  commodore  not  to  give  up  the  possession  of  her  to 
any  person  whatever,  and  repeatedly  drove  away  by  force  the  British 
mariner,  who.  by  his  order,  took  possession  of  the  helm. 

Mr.  Cockraft  is  another  witness  to  the  same  ellect,  and  Mr.  Candish, 
the  officer  who  was  taken  by  force  out  of  the  Swedish  merchantman. 
Expressions  of  strong  reproach  against  the  proceedings  of  the  En- 
glish were  addressed  to  him,  and  the  commodore  protested,  that  if  he 
had  not  been  surprised  he  would  have  defended  his  convoy  to  the  last. 

What  then  do  these  attestations  (uncontradicted  attestations) 
prove  ?  To  my  apprehension  they  prove  most  clearly  these  facts : 
tiiat  a  large  number  of  vessels,  connected  all  together  with  each  other, 
and  with  a  frigate  which  convoyed  them,  being  bound  to  different 
ports  in  the  Mediterranean,  some  declared  to  be  enemy's  ports  and 
others  not,  with  cargoes  consisting,  amongst  other  things,  of  naval 
stores,  were  met  with,  close  upon  the  British  coast,  by  His  Britannic 
Majestv's  cruisers ;  that  a  continued  resistance  was  given  by  the  frigate 
to  the  act  of  boarding  any  of  these  vessels  by  the  British  cruisers,  and 
that  extreme  violence  was  threatened  in  order  to  prevent  it ;  and  that 
the  violence  was  prevented  from  proceeding  to  extremities  only  by 
the  superior  British  force  which  overawed  it ;  that  the  act  being 
effected  in  the  night,  bv  the  prudence  of  the  British  commander,  the 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  457 

purpose  of  hostile  resistance,  so  far  from  being  disavowed,  was  main- 
tained to  the  last,  and  complaint  made  that  it  had  been  eluded  by  a 
stratagem  of  the  night ;  that  a  forcible  recapture  of  one  vessel  took 
place,  and  a  forcible  capture  and  detention  of  one  British  officer  who 
was  on  board  her,  and  who,  as  T  understand  the  evidence,  was  not  re- 
leased till  the  superiority  of  the  British  force  had  awed  this  Swedish 
frigate  into  something  of  a  stipulated  submission. 

So  far  go  the  general  facts.  But  all  this,  it  is  said,  might  be  the 
ignorance  or  perverseness  of  the  Swedish  officer  of  the  frigate — the 
folly  or  the  fault  of  the  individual  alone.  This  suggestion  is  contra- 
dicted by  Mr.  Raper's  log-book,  which  proves  that  the  merchantmen 
refused  to  admit  the  British  officers  on  board,  and  declared  that  they 
would  obey  nobody  but  their  own  commodore ;  a  fact  to  which  Mr. 
M'Dougal  likewise  bears  testimony.  It  is  contradicted  still  more  forci- 
bly by  the  two  sets  of  instructions,  those  belonging  to  the  frigate  and 
those  belonging  to  the  merchant  vessels.  The  latter  have  been  brought 
into  court  by  themselves,  and  of  the  authenticity  of  the  former  there 
is  no  reasonable  doubt ;  for  they  are  transmitted  to  me  upon  the  faith 
of  one  of  the  great  public  offices  of  the  British  Government,  and  no 
person  disavows  them,  and  indeed  nobody  can  disavow  them,  because 
they  were  produced  by  the  Swedish  captain,  who  made  no  secret  what- 
ever of  their  contents.  Something  of  a  complaint  has  been  indulged, 
that  the  orders  from  the  British  Admiralty  have  not  been  produced ; 
a  singular  complaint,  considering  that  they  were  never  called  for  by 
the  claimants,  and  they  were  not  ordered  by  the  court ;  because,  if  the 
act  of  the  captors  was  illegal,  the  orders  of  the  Admiralty  would  not 
justify  it.  and  the  want  of  orders  would  not  vitiate,  if  the  act  was 
legal.  No  mystery,  however,  was  made  about  these,  for  the  com- 
munication of  orders  and  instructions  was  mutual  and  unreserved.  Tt 
is  said  that  the  instructions  to  the  frigate  are  intended  only  against 
cruisers  of  Tripoli,  and  an  affidavit  has  been  brought  in  to  show  that 
that  Government  had  begun  hostilities  against  the  Swedes.  The  lan- 
guage, however,  of  these  instructions  is  as  universal  as  language  possi- 
bly can  be ;  it  is  pointed  against  the  "fleets  of  any  nation  whatever." 
Tt  is,  hoAvever,  said  that  this  was  merely  to  avoid  giving  offence  to  the 
Tripoline  Government.  But  is  the  Tripoline  Government  the  only 
Government  whose  delicacy  is  to  be  consulted  in  such  matters?  Are 
terms  to  be  used  alarming  to  every  other  State,  merely  to  save  appear- 
ances with  a  Government  v.^hich,  they  allege  in  the  affidavit  referred 


458  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

to,  had  already  engaged  in  unjust  hostility  against  them?  There  is, 
however,  no  necessity  for  me  to  notice  this  suggestion  very  particu- 
larly, and  for  this  plain  reason,  that  it  is  merely  a  suggestion,  neither 
proved  nor  attempted  to  be  proved  in  any  manner  whatever ;  and  the 
res  gesta  completely  proves  the  fact  to  be  otherwise,  because  it  is  clear 
that  if  it  had  been  so,  the  commander  of  the  frigate  must  have  had 
most  explicit  instructions  to  that  eflFect.  They  could  never  have  put 
such  general  instructions  on  board,  meaning  that  they  should  be  lim- 
ited in  their  application  to  one  particular  State,  without  accompanying 
them  with  an  explanation  either  verbal  or  written,  which  it  was  im- 
possible for  him  to  misunderstand.  Such  explanation  was  the  master- 
key  which  they  must  have  provided  for  his  private  use,  whereas  noth- 
ing can  be  more  certain  than  that  he  had  been  left  without  any  such 
restrictive  instructions ;  he,  therefore,  acts  as  any  other  man  would 
do,  upon  the  natural  sense  and  meaning  of  the  only  instructions  he 
had  received.  On  this  part  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  question  is. 
What  is  it  that  these  general  instructions  purport? 

The  terms  of  the  instructions  are  these — they  are  incapable  of  be- 
ing misunderstood:  "In  case  the  commander  should  rncet  with  any 
ships  of  war  of  other  nations,  one  or  more  of  any  ileet  whatever,  then 
the  commander  is  to  treat  them  with  all  possible  friendship,  and  not  to 
give  any  occasion  of  enmity;  but  if  you  meet  with  a  foreign  armed 
vessel  which  should  be  desirous  of  having  further  assurance  that  your 
frigate  belongs  to  the  King  of  Sweden,  then  the  commander  is  by  the 
Swedish  flag  and  salute  to  make  known  that  it  is  so ;  or  if  they  would 
make  any  search  amongst  the  merchant  vessels  under  your  convoy, 
which  ought  to  be  endeavored  to  be  prevented  as  much  as  possible, 
then  the  commander  is,  in  case  such  thing  should  be  insisted  upon  and 
that  remonstrances  could  not  be  amicably  made,  and  that  notwith- 
standing your  amicable  comportment  the  merchant  ships  should  never- 
theless be  violently  attacked,  then  violence  must  be  opposed  against 
violence."  Removing  mere  civility  of  expression,  what  is  the  real 
import  of  these  instructions?  Neither  more  nor  less  than  this,  ac- 
cording to  my  apprehension — "if  you  meet  with  the  cruisers  of  the 
belligerent  States,  and  they  express  an  intention  of  visiting  and  search- 
ing the  merchant  ships,  you  are  to  talk  them  out  of  their  purpose  if 
you  can ;  and  if  you  can't,  you  are  to  fight  them  out  of  it."  That  is 
the  plain  English,  and,  I  presume,  the  plain  Swedish  of  the  matter. 

Were  these  instructions  confined  to  the   frigate,  or  were  thev  ac- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  459 

cepted  and  acted  upon  by  the  merchantmen?  That  they  were  acted 
upon  is  already  shown  in  the  affidavits  which  I  have  stated ;  that  they 
were  dehberately  accepted,  appears  from  their  own  instructions,  which 
exactly  tally  with  them.  These  instructions  declare  in  express  terms, 
"that  all  merchant  ships,  during  the  time  they  are  under  convoy  of 
His  Majesty's  ships,  are  earnestly  forbidden  to  suffer  the  boats  of  any 
foreign  nation  to  board  them  for  the  sake  of  visitation  or  searching; 
but  in  case  such  boats  show  an  intention  of  coming  alongside,  the 
merchant  ships  are  to  sheer  from  them."  It  appears  from  the  attes- 
tation that  the  obedience  of  these  merchantmen  outran  the  letter  of 
their  instructions. 

Whatever  then  was  done  upon  this  occasion  was  not  done  by  the 
unadvised  rashness  of  one  individual,  but  it  was  an  instructed  and 
premeditated  act — an  act  common  to  all  the  parties  concerned  in  it; 
and  of  which  every  part  belongs  to  all ;  and  for  which  all  the  parties, 
being  associated  with  one  common  intent,  are  legally  and  equitably 
answerable. 

This  being  the  actual  state  of  the  fact,  it  is  proper  for  me  to  ex- 
amine, secondly,  what  is  their  legal  state,  or,  in  other  words,  to  what 
considerations  they  are  justly  subject  according  to  the  law  of  nations ; 
for  which  purpose  I  state  a  few  principles  of  that  system  of  law  which 
I  take  to  be  incontrovertible. 

First,  That  the  right  of  visiting  and  searching  merchant  ships  upon 
the  high  seas,  whatever  be  the  ships,  whatever  be  the  cargoes,  what- 
ever be  the  destinations,  is  an  incontestible  right  of  the  lawfully  com- 
missioned cruisers  of  a  belligerent  nation.  I  say.  be  the  ships,  the 
cargoes,  and  the  destinations  what  they  may,  because,  till  they 
are  visited  and  searched,  it  does  not  appear  what  the  ships,  or 
the  cargoes,  or  the  destinations  are ;  and  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining these  points  that  the  necessity  of  this  right  of  visitation 
and  search  exists.  This  right  is  so  clear  in  principle,  that  no  man  can 
deny  it  who  admits  the  legality  of  maritime  capture ;  because  if  you 
are  not  at  liberty  to  ascertain  by  sufficient  inquiry  whether  there  is 
property  that  can  legally  be  captured,  it  is  impossible  to  capture.  Even 
those  who  contend  for  the  inadmissible  rule,  that  free  ships  make 
free  goods,  must  admit  the  exercise  of  this  right  at  least  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  whether  the  ships  are  free  ships  or  not.  The 
right  is  equally  clear  in  practice ;  for  practice  is  uniform  and  universal 
upon  the  subject.     The  many  European  treaties  which  refer  to  this 


460  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

right,  refer  to  it  as  preexisting,  and  merely  regulate  the  exercise  of  it. 
All  writers  upon  the  law  of  nations  unanimously  acknowledge  it. 
without  the  exception  even  of  Hubner  himself,  the  great  champion  of 
neutral  privileges.  In  short,  no  man  in  the  least  degree  conversant 
in  subjects  of  this  kind  has  ever,  that  I  know  of,  breathed  a  doubt 
upon  it.  The  right  must  unquestionably  be  exercised  with  as  little  of 
personal  harshness  and  of  vexation  in  the  mode  as  possible ;  but  soften 
it  as  much  as  you  can,  it  is  still  a  right  of  force,  though  of  lawful  force 
— something  in  the  nature  of  civil  process,  where  force  is  employed, 
but  a  lawful  force,  which  cannot  lawfully  be  resisted.  For  it  is  a 
wild  conceit  that  wherever  force  is  used,  it  may  be  forcibly  resisted ; 
a  lawful  force  cannot  lawfully  be  resisted.  The  only  case  where  it 
can  be  so  in  matters  of  this  nature,  is  in  the  state  of  war  and  conflict 
between  two  countries  where  one  party  has  a  perfect  right  to  attack 
by  force,  and  the  other  has  an  equally  perfect  right  to  repel  by  force. 
But  in  the  relative  situation  of  two  countries  at  peace  with  each  other, 
no  such  conflicting  rights  can  possibly  coexist. 

Secondly,  That  the  authority  of  the  sovereign  of  the  neutral  country 
being  interposed  in  any  manner  of  mere  force  cannot  legally  vary 
the  rights  of  a  lawfully  commissioned  belligerent  cruiser.  I  say  le- 
gally, because  what  may  be  given,  or  be  fit  to  be  given,  in  the  admin- 
istration of  this  species  of  law,  to  considerations  of  comity  or  of  na- 
tional policy,  are  views  of  the  matter  which,  sitting  in  this  court,  I 
have  no  right  to  entertain.  All  that  I  assert  is,  that  legally  it  cannot 
be  maintained,  that  if  a  Swedish  commissioned  cruiser,  during  the 
wars  of  his  own  country,  has  a  right  by  the  law  of  nations  to  visit  and 
examine  neutral  ships,  the  King  of  England,  being  neutral  to  Sweden, 
is  authorized  by  that  law  to  obstruct  the  exercise  of  that  right  with 
respect  to  the  merchant  ships  of  his  country.  I  add  this,  that  I  can- 
not but  think  that  if  he  obstructed  it  by  force,  it  would  very  much 
resemble  (with  all  due  reverence  be  it  spoken)  an  opposition  of  illegal 
violence  to  legal  right.  Two  sovereigns  may  unquestionably  agree,  if 
they  think  fit  (as  in  some  late  instances  they  have  agreed^),  by  special 
covenant,  that  the  presence  of  one  of  their  armed  ships  along  with 
their  merchant  ships  shall  be  mutually  imderstood  to  imply  that  noth- 
ing is  to  be  found  in  that  convoy  of  merchant  ships  inconsistent  with 
amity  or  neutrality ;  and  if  they  consent  to  accept  this  pledge,  no  third 
party  has  a  right  to  quarrel  with  it  any  more  than  with  any  other 


^It    is   made   an   article   of   treaty   between    America   and    Holland,    an.    1782, 
Article  10,  Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  2,  p.  255. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  461 

pledge  which  they  may  agree  mutually  to  accept.     But  surely  no  sov- 
ereign can  legally  compel  the  acceptance  of  such  a  security  by  mere 
force.     The  only  security  known  to  the  law  of  nations  upon  this  sub- 
ject, independent  of  all  special  covenant,  is  the  right  of  personal  visita- 
tion and  search,  to  be  exercised  by  those  who  have  the  interest  in 
making  it.     I  am  not  ignorant,  that  amongst  the  loose  doctrines  which 
modern   fancy,   under  the  various   denominations   of   philosophy  and 
philanthrophy,  and  I  know  not  what,  have  thrown  upon  the  world,  it 
has  been  within  these  few  years  advanced,  or  rather  insinuated,  that 
it  might  possibly  be  well  if  such  a  security  were  accepted.     Upon  such 
unauthorized  speculations  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  descant.    The 
law  and  practice  of  nations  (I  include  partially  the  practice  of  Sweden 
when  it  happens  to  be  belligerent)  give  them  no  sort  of  countenance; 
and  until  that  law  and  practice  are  new-modelled  in  such  a  way  as  may 
surrender  the  known  and  ancient  rights  of  some  nations  to  the  present 
convenience  of  other  nations   (which  nations  may  perhaps  remember 
to  forget  them,  when  they  happen  to  be  themselves  belligerent),  no 
reverence  is  due  to  them ;  they  are  the  elements  of  that  system  which, 
if  it  is  consistent,  has  for  its  real  purpose  an  entire  abolition  of  cap- 
ture in  war — that  is,  in  other  words,  to  change  the  nature  of  hostility, 
as  it  has  ever  existed  amongst  mankind,  and  to  introduce  a  state  of 
things  not  yet  seen  in  the  world,  that  of  a  military  war  and  a  com- 
mercial peace.     If  it  were  fit  that  such  a  state  should  be  introduced, 
it  is  at  least  necessary  that  it  should  be  introduced  in  an  avowed  and 
intelligible  manner,  and  not  in  a   way  which,  professing  gravely  to 
adhere  to  that  system  which  has  for  centuries  prevailed  among  civil- 
ized States,  and  urging  at  the  same  time  a  pretension  utterly  incon- 
sistent with  all  its  known  principles,  delivers  over  the  whole  matter 
at  once  to  eternal  controversy  and  conflict,  at  the  expense  of  the  con- 
stant hazard  of  the  harmony  of  States,  and  of  the  lives  and  safeties 
of  innocent  individuals. 

Thirdly,  That  the  penalty  for  the  violent  contravention  of  this  right  is 
the  confiscation  of  the  property  so  withheld  from  visitation  and  search. 
For  the  proof  of  this  I  need  only  refer  to  Vattel,  one  of  the  most  cor- 
rect and  certainly  not  the  least  indulgent  of  modern  professors  of 
public  law.  In  Book  III.  c.  vii.  §  114,  he  expresses  himself  thus: 
"On  ne  pent  empecher  le  transport  des  eflFets  de  contrebande,  si  Ton 
ne  visite  pas  les  vaisseaux  neutres  que  Ton  rencontre  en  mer.  On  est 
done  en  droit  de  les  visiter.     Quelques  nations  puissantes  ont  refuse 


462  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

en  differents  temps  de  se  soumettre  a  cette  visite.  Aujourd'hui  un  vais- 
seau  neutre  qui  refuseroit  de  souffrir  la  visite,  se  feroit  condamner 
par  cela  seul,  comme  etant  de  bonne  prise."  Vattel  is  here  to  be  con- 
sidered not  as  a  lawyer  merely  delivering  an  opinion,  but  as  a  witness 
asserting  the  fact — the  fact  that  such  is  the  existing  practice  of  mod- 
ern Europe.  And  to  be  sure  the  only  marvel  in  the  case  is,  that  he 
should  mention  it  as  a  law  merely  modern,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
it  is  a  principle,  not  only  of  the  civil  law  (on  which  great  part  of  the 
law  of  nations  is  founded),  but  of  the  private  jurisprudence  of  most 
countries  in  Europe,  that  a  contumacious  refusal  to  submit  to  fair 
inquiry  infers  all  the  penalties  of  convicted  guilt.  Conformably  to 
this  principle  we  find  in  the  celebrated  French  ordinance  of  1861, 
now  in  force.  Article  12,  "That  every  vessel  shall  be  good  prize 
in  case  of  resistance  and  combat."  And  Valin,  in  his  smaller 
Commentary,  p.  81,  says  expressly,  that  although  the  expression 
is  in  the  conjunctive,  yet  that  the  resistance  alone  is  sufficient.^  He 
refers  to  the  Spanish  ordinance,  1718,  evidently  copied  from  it,  in 
which  it  is  expressed  in  the  disjunctive,  "in  case  of  resistance  or 
combat."  And  recent  instances  are  at  hand  and  within  view,  in 
which  it  appears  that  Spain  continues  to  act  upon  this  principle.  The 
first  time  in  which  it  occurs  to  my  notice  on  the  inquiries  I  have  been 
able  to  make  in  the  institutes  of  our  own  country  respecting  matters  of 
this  nature,  excepting  what  occurs  in  the  Black  Book  of  the  Admiralty .- 


^In  some  of  the  treaties  of  France  this  article  is  expressly  inserted  in  the 
disjunctive.  Treaty  between  France  and  the  Duchy  of  Mecklenburg,  Article 
18,  an.  1779.  Martens,  Recueil,  1st  ed.,  vol.  2.  p.  40;  also  between  France  and 
Hamburg,  an.  1769. 

2"B.  7.  Item  se  aucune  nef  ou  vessel  de  la  ditte  flotte  a  congie  et  pouvoir  de 
I'admiral  de  passer  hors  de  la  flotte  entour  aucun  message  ou  autre  besongne. 
s'ilz  encontrent  ou  trouvent  aucuns  vesseaulx  estranges  sur  la  mer  ou  en  ports 
des  ennemys,  adonques  ceulx  de  nostre  flotte  doivent  demander  des  maistres  et 
gouverneurs  de  telz  vesseaulx  estrangers  dont  ilz  sont  et  eulx  bien  examiner  de 
leur  charge  ensemblement  avecques  leurs  muniments  et  endentures,  et  s'il  est  trouve 
aucune  chose  de  suspicion  en  telz  vesseaulx  que  les  biens  sont  aux  ennemys,  qui 
sont  trouvez  dedens  les  dits  vesseaulx  avec  leurs  maistres  et  gouverneurs  ensem- 
blement avecques  les  biens  dedens  icelle  estants  souvement  seront  amenees  devant 
I'admiral,  et  illccques  s'il  est  trouve  qu'ilz  sont  loyaulx  marchants  et  amys  sans 
suspicion  de  colerer,  les  biens  seront  a  eulx  redelivrees  sans  eulx  rien  dommager, 
autremcnt  seront  pris  avec  leurs  biens  et  raensonnez  comme  la  loy  de  mer  veult 
et  demande. 

"B.  8.  Se  aucunes  de  noz  neufs  ou  vesseaulx  encontrent  sur  la  mer  ou  en  ports 
aucuns  autres  vesseaulx,  qui  facent  rebelletees  ou  defense  encontre  ceulx  de  noz 
nefs  ou  vesseaulx,  adoncques  bien  lise  a  noz  gents,  les  autres  comme  ennemys 
assaillir  et  part  forte  mayn  les  prendre  et  amener  entierement,  comme  ilz  les 
ont  gaignez,  devant  I'admiral  sans  eulx  piller  ou  endommager,  illecques  de 
prendre  ce  que  loy  et  coustume  de  mer  veult  et  demande,  etc." 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  463 

is  in  the  Order  of  Council,  1664,  Article  12,^  which  direct,  "That  when 
any  ship,  met  withal  by  the  royal  navy  or  other  ship  commissionated, 
shall  fight  or  make  resistance,  the  said  ship  and  goods  shall  be  adjudged 
lawful  prize."  A  similar  article  occurs  in  the  proclamation  of  1672.  I 
am  aware,  that  in  those  orders  and  proclamations  are  to  be  found  some 
articles   not  very  consistent  with  the  law  of   nations  as  understood 


_  ^During  the  struggle  for  naval  superiority,  which  took  place  between  the  mari- 
time States  of  Europe,  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  preten- 
sion of  resisting  search  by  the  protection  of  convoy,  was  put  forward  with 
much  caution,  and  apparently  for  the  first  time,  by  Christina,  Queen  of  Sweden, 
August  16th,  1653.  Article  4th.  "They  shall  in  all  possible  ways  decline  that 
they,  or  any  of  those  that  belong  to  them  be  searched.  For  seeing  they  are  only 
sent  to  prevent  all  inconvenience  and  clandestine  dealings,  it  is  expected  that 
they  may  be  believed,  and  suffered  to  pass  and  proceed  on  their  course  un- 
molested, with  all  such  things  as  are  under  their  care."  It  was  restrained  to 
neutral  ports.  Article  6th.  "And  more  especially,  for  certain  reasons,  it  is  our 
command,  that  our  men  of  war  do  chiefly,  and  in  the  beginning,  steer  their 
course  to  such  ports  as  are  neutral  in  the  English  and  Dutch  war.  till  we  give 
any  fartlier  directions  on  that  account.  However,  without  any  hindrance  to  our 
own  subjects,  that  intend  to  carry  on  their  own  free  trade  to  England  and  Hol- 
land without  convoy."     Thurloe's  St.  Papers,  vol.  1,  p.  425. 

In  1655,  it  was  taken  up  by  Holland.  "They  have  a  design  to  hinder  the 
Protector  all  visitation  and  search ;  and  this  by  very  strong  and  sufficient  con- 
voy; and  by  this  means  they  will  draw  all  trade  to  themselves  and  their  ships." 
Ibid.,  vol.  4,  p.  203. 

In  May,  1656,  there  happened  an  actual  rencounter  on  this  subject  between 
a  fleet  of  merchantmen  from  Cadiz  (Spain  being  then  at  war  with  England), 
under  the  convoy  of  De  Ruyter,  with  seven  men  of  war,  and  the  commodore 
of  some  English  frigates.  "Antwerp.  We  have  certain  news  of  the  arrival  of 
De  Ruyter  in  Zealand  from  Cadiz,  from  whence  he  brought  stores  of  plate, 
mostly  belonging  to  merchants  of  this  city;  he  was  met  withal  at  sea  by  some 
English  frigates,  but  finding  themselves  too  weak  they  let  him  go."  Ibid.,  vol. 
4,  p.  740.  See  also  the  particular  account  of  what  passed,  given  by  a  Dutch 
officer  to  the  States-General.  "That  upon  De  Ruyter  declaring  that  there  was 
not  anything  on  board  belonging  to  the  King  of  Spain,  they  parted."  Ibid., 
vol.  4,  p.  731.  It  appears,  however,  that  the  arrival  occasioned  great  triumph 
in  Holland  and  Flanders,  and  that  the  fleet  was  deeply  laden  with  silver  for 
the  King  of  Spain,  and  the  service  of  his  armies  in  Flanders.  "De  Ruyter 
brought  in  his  own  ship,  and  others  in  his  fleet,  the  sum  of  20,000,000  (perhaps 
rials)  of  gold  and  silver,  the  greatest  part  for  the  King  of  Spain's  use  and 
the  merchants  of  Brabant  and  Flanders."  Ibid.,  vol.  4,  pp.  748,  732.  The  12th 
article  of  the  English  Ordinance  of  1664  might  perhaps  be  pointed  against  these 
pretensions. 

In  another  letter  in  the  same  collection,  21st  September,  1657,  from  Nieuport. 
the  Dutch  Ambassador  in  England,  we  find  the  subject  of  convoy  was  strongly 
pressed  at  that  time,  and  resisted  on  the  part  of  this  country,  "respecting  secret 
articles,"  concerning  the  visitation  of  ships  which  are  convoyed  under  the  flag 
of  the  State.  I  acquainted  their  Lordships,  that  of  old  all  kings  and  States  had 
made  a  difference  between  particular  ships  sailing  upon  their  risks  and  ad- 
ventures, and  between  ships  of  the  State  and  those  which  pass  the  sea  under 
their  flag  and  protection.  That  their  High  and  Mighty  Lords  were  of  an  opinion 
that  it  does  strengthen  the  security  of  this  State,  that  the  ships  of  the  State  and 
officers  should  be  responsible,  as  it  were,  for  the  ships  sailing  under  their  con- 
voy; and  that  which  I  had  proposed  in  my  last  memorandum  concerning  the 


464  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

now,  or  indeed  at  that  time,  for  they  are  expressly  censured  by  Lord 
Clarendon/ 

But  the  article  I  refer  to  is  not  of  those  he  reprehends,  and  it  is 
observable  that  Sir  Robert  Wiseman,  then  the  King's  Advocate  Gen- 
eral, who  reported  upon  the  articles  in  1673,  and  expresses  a  disap- 
probation of  some  of  them  as  harsh  and  novel,  does  not  mark  this 
article  with  any  observation  of  censure.  I  am,  therefore,  warranted  in 
saying,  that  it  was  the  rule,  and  the  undisputed  rule,  of  the  British 
Admiralty.  I  will  not  say  that  that  rule  may  not  have  been  broken 
in  upon  in  some  instances  by  considerations  of  comity  or  of  policy,  by 
which  it  may  be  fit  that  the  administration  of  this  species  of  law 
should  be  tempered  in  the  hands  of  those  tribunals  which  have  a  right 


same  on  behalf  of  their  High  and  Mighty  Lords  was  no  new  thing,  but  that 
plan  had  been  most  commonly  proposed  on  all  the  treaties  since  the  year  1651,  in 
that  manner  that  without  regulating  the  same  according  to  the  said  articles,  the 
troubles  at  sea,  whereof  I  had  so  often  complained,  could  not  be  removed  and 
prevented,  and  I  alleged  several  examples.  Upon  which  now  one,  then  the 
other,  of  the  said  three  Lords*  replied,  and  did  very  much  insist,  that  it  could 
not  consist  with  their  security  ;  that  they  could  not  nor  ought  to  trust  so  much 
to  particular  captains  at  sea ;  that  it  would  be  an  introduction  and  encouragement 
to  disaffected  persons  to  assist  the  enemy,  and  urged  especially  that  in  no 
former  treaties  any  such  articles  were  found,  and  that  their  High  and  Mighty 
Lords  had  no  reason  to  desire  now  any  such  novelty.  I  said  that  the  practice 
on  this  side  in  regard  of  searching  and  visiting  ships  without  difference  was  a 
new  thing,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  Netherlands,  feeling  the 
trouble  and  inconveniency  of  it,  had  reason  to  insist  that  it  may  be  rectifiea 
by  a  good  regulation."  Vol.  6,  p.  511.  See  also  for  the  former  conference, 
vol.  5,  p.  663. 

It  appears  tliat  so  many  objections  had  arisen  on  the  treaty  proposed  on  the 
part  of  Holland,  that  it  was  found  necessary  to  form  an  entirely  new  project. 
Vol.  6,  pp.  523,  558. 

In  a  subsequent  letter  from  The  Hague,  30th  November,  1657,  it  appears 
that  the  treaty  broke  off  on  this  difference.  "Le  Sicur  Nieuport  n'est  pas 
encore  ici  arrive,  mais  il  escrit  aussi  d'avoir  prins  son  conge.  II  est  fort 
croyable  qu'il  ne  sera  guere  content  d'avoir  faille  a  achever  le  traite  de  la 
marine;  neanmoins,  je  m'imagine  que  la  Hollande  a  present  ne  seroit  pas  fort 
marry  de  ne  I'avoir  pas  acheve,  pour  ne  se  pas  oster  la  liberte  de  visiter  des 
memes  en  cette  guerre  contre  Portugal."     Ibid.,  p.  621. 

On  the  subject  of  search  generally,  without  any  expressed  reference  to  con- 
voy, there  is  this  letter  from  Cromwell  to  General  Montagu.  "The  secretary 
hath  communicated  to  us  your  letter  of  the  28th,  by  which  you  acquaint  him 
with  the  directions  you  have  given  for  the  searching  of  a  flushing  and  other 
Dutch  ships,  which  (as  you  are  informed),  have  bullion  and  other  goods  aboard 
them  belonging  to  the  Spaniard,  the  declared  enemy  of  this  State.  There  is 
no  question  to  be  made  but  what  you  have  directed  therein  is  agreeable  both 
to  the  laws  of  nations  and  the  particular  treaties  which  are  between  this  com- 
monwealth and  the  United  Provinces,  and,  therefore  we  desire  you  to  continue 
the  said  direction,  and  to  require  the  captains  to  be  careful  in  doing  their 
duty  therein.     Hampton  Court,  30th  August,  1657." 

♦Thurloe,  Wolsely,  Jones. 

^Lord  Clarendon's  Life,  p.  242  [vol.  2,  p.  460]. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  465 

to  entertain  and  apply  them ;  for  no  man  can  deny  that  a  State  may 
recede  from  its  extreme  rights,  and  that  its  supreme  councils  are  au- 
thorized to  determine  in  what  cases  it  may  be  fit  to  do  so,  the  par- 
ticular captor  having  in  no  case  any  other  right  and  title  than  what 
the  State  itself  would  possess  under  the  same  facts  of  capture.  But 
I  stand  with  confidence  upon  all  fair  principles  of  reason, — upon  the 
distinct  authority  of  Vattel, — upon  the  institutes  of  other  great  mari- 
time countries,  as  well  as  those  of  our  own  country, — when  I  venture 
to  lay  it  down,  that  by  the  law  of  nations,  as  now  understood,  a  de- 
liberate and  continued  resistance  to  search,  on  the  part  of  a  neutral 
vessel  to  a  lawful  cruiser,  is  followed  by  the  legal  consequence  of 
confiscation. 

3.  The  third  proposed  inquiry  was,  whether  any  special  circum- 
stances preceded,  accompanied,  or  followed  the  transaction,  which 
ought  in  any  manner  or  degree  to  affect  the  application  of  the  general 
principles  ? 

The  first  ground  of  exemption  stated  on  the  part  of  the  claimants 
is  the  treaty  with  Sweden,  1661,  Article  12,  and  it  was  insisted  by  Dr. 
Lawrence,  that  although  the  belligerent  country  is  authorized  by  the 
treaty  to  exercise  rights  of  inquiry  in  the  first  instance,  yet  that  these 
rights  were  not  exercised  in  the  manner  therein  prescribed.  It  is  an 
obvious  answer  to  that  observation,  that  this  treaty  never  had  in  its 
contemplation  the  extraordinary  case  of  an  armed  vessel  sent  in  com- 
pany with  merchantmen  for  the  very  purpose  of  beating  oft'  all  inquiry 
and  search.  On  the  contrary,  it  supposes  an  inquiry  for  certain  papers, 
and  if  they  are  not  exhibited,  or  "there  is  any  other  just  and  strong 
cause    of    suspicion,"    then    the    ship    is    to    undergo    search.^      The 


^It  is  said  by  Secretary  Thurloe,  in  his  conference  with  the  Dutch  Ambassador, 
December,  1656,  "that  the  point  of  passes  was  very  considerable  to  the  State, 
and  that  the  same  was  never  agreed  to  in  any  treaty  with  any  nation,  but  lately 
to  Sweden."    Thurloe's  St.  Pap.,  vol.  S,  p.  663. 

A  reference  to  the  certificate  of  foreign  magistrates,  with  a  primary  but 
inconclusive  credit  ascribed  to  them,  appears  to  have  been  established  in  Den- 
mark, by  Frederick  II,  in  1583,  as  a  custom  house  regulation  respecting  the 
customs  and  sound  duties  payable  by  foreign  merchants, — speaking  of  abuses, 
"we,  not  minding  any  longer  to  suffer  the  same,  do  therefore  will  that  hence- 
forth every  man  which  uses  his  trade  of  merchandise  and  navigation  through 
our  custom  towns  and  streams  do  cause  a  certain  and  just  brief  of  all  the  laden 
merchandises  and  goods  to  be  comprehended  in  the  certificates  which  he  is  to 
take  under  the  seal  of  his  magistrate,  and  deliver  the  same  to  our  customers, 
with  this  warning,  that  if  any  man  arrive  there  without  such  true  and  just 
certificate,  and  any  hindrance  and  inconvenience  do  happen  unto  him  in  that 
respect,  the  ship  being  searched,  that  then  he  impute  the  same  unto  himself, 


466  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

treaty,  therefore,  recognizes  the  rights  of  inquiry  and  search,  and 
the  violation  of  those  rights  is  not  less  a  violation  of  the  treaty  than 
it  is  of  the  general  law  of  nations.  It  is  said  that  the  demand  ought 
first  to  have  been  made  upon  the  frigate.  I  know  of  no  other  rule 
but  that  of  mere  courtesy  which  requires  this ;  for  this  extraordinary 
case  of  an  armed  ship  travelling  along  with  merchant  ships  is  not  a 
casus  fccderis  that  is  at  all  so  provided  for  in  the  treaty ;  however,  if 
it  is  a  rule,  it  was  complied  with  in  the  present  instance,  and  the  answer 
returned  was,  that,  "they  were  Swedish  ships  bound  to  various  ports 
in  the  Mediterranean,  laden  with  iron,  hemp,  pitch  and  tar."  The 
question  then  comes,  what  rights  accrued  upon  the  receipt  of  this 
answer?  I  say,  first,  that  a  right  accrued  of  sending  on  board  each 
particular  ship  for  their  several  papers ;  for  each  particular  ship,  with- 
out doubt,  had  its  own  papers ;  the  frigate  could  not  have  them ;  and 
the  captors  had  a  right  to  send  on  board  them  to  demand  those  papers, 
as  well  under  the  treaty  as  under  the  general  law.  A  second  right 
that  accrued  upon  the  receiving  of  this  answer  was  a  right  of  detain- 
ing such  vessels  as  were  carrying  cargoes  so  composed,  either  wholly 
or  in  part,  to  any  ports  of  the  enemies  of  this  country ;  for  that  tar, 
pitch,  and  hemp,  going  to  the  enemy's  use,  are  liable  to  be  seized  as 
contraband  in  their  own  nature,  cannot,  I  conceive,  be  doubted  under 
the  modern  law  of  nations ;  though  formerly,  when  the  hostilities  of 
Europe  were  less  naval  than  they  have  since  become,  they  were  of  a 
disputable  nature,  and  perhaps  continued  so  at  the  time  of  making 
that  treaty,  or  at  least  at  the  time  of  making  that  treaty  which  is  the 
basis  of  it,  I  mean  the  treaty  in  which  Whitlock  was  employed  in  the 
year  1656;  for  I  conceive  that  Valin  expresses  the  truth  of  this  mat- 
ter, when  he  says,  page  68,  "De  droit  ces  chases'  (speaking  of  naval 
stores),  "sonte  de  contrabande  aujourd'hiii  et  depuis  le  commencement 
de  ce  siecle,  ce  qui  n'etoit  pas  autrefois  neanmoins"  ;  and  Vattel,  the  best 
recent  writer  upon  these  matters,  explicitly  admits,  amongst  positive 
contraband,  "les  bois  et  tout  ce  qui  sert  a  la  construction  et  a  I'arma- 
ment  de  vaisseaux  de  guerre."  Upon  this  principle  was  founded  the 
modern  explanatory  article  of  the  Danish  treaty,  entered  into  in  1780, 


and  not  unto  us  or  ours ;  and  if  upon  cause  of  suspicion  the  ships  should  be 
searched,  notwithstanding  that  a  particular  certificate  had  been  delivered ;  and 
that  in  them  more  merchants*  goods  should  be  found  than  were  comprehended 
in  the  certificates  which  were  brought  in,  then  not  only  those  goods,  but  the 
whole  ship  and  goods,  as  being  forfeited,  shall  be  confiscated  and  seized  upon." 
Promulged,  1583,  Rym.  Feed.,  vol.  16,  pp.  437,  352. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  467 

on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  by  a  noble  Lord/  then  Secretary  of  State 
whose  attention  had  been  peculiarly  turned  to  subjects  of  this  nature. 
I  am  therefore  of  opinion,  that,  although  it  might  be  shown  that  the 
nature  of  these  commodities  had  been  subject  to  some  controversy  in 
the  time  of  Whitlock,  when  the  fundamental  treaty  was  constructed, 
and  that  therefore  a  discreet  silence  was  observed  respecting  them  in 
the  composition  of  that  treaty  and  of  the  later  treaty  derived  from  it, 
yet  that  the  exposition  which  the  later  judgment  and  practice  of  Eu- 
rope has  given  upon  this  subject,  would,  in  some  degree,  affect  and 
apply  what  the  treaties  had  been  content  to  leave  on  that  indefinite 
and  disputable  footing  on  which  the  notions  then  more  generally  pre- 
vailing in  Europe  had  placed  it.  Certain  it  is,  that  in  the  year  1750, 
the  Lords  of  Appeal  in  this  country  declared  pitch  and  tar,  the  produce 
of  Sweden,  and  on  board  a  Swedish  ship  bound  to  a  French  port,  to 
be  contraband,  and  subject  to  confiscation,  in  the  memorable  case  of 
the  Med  Good's  Hjelpe}  In  the  more  modern  understanding  of  this 
matter,  goods  of  this  nature  being  the  produce  of  Sweden,  and  the 
actual  property  of  Swedes,  and  conveyed  by  their  own  navigation,  have 
been  deemed,  in  British  courts  of  admiralty,  upon  a  principle  of  indul- 
gence to  the  native  products  and  ordinary  commerce  of  that  country, 
subject  only  to  the  milder  rights  of  preoccupancy  and  preemption;  or 
to  the  rights  of  preventing  the  goods  from  being  carried  to  the  enemy, 
and  of  applying  them  to  your  own  use,  making  a  just  pecuniary  com- 
pensation for  them.  But  to  these  rights,  being  bound  to  an  enemy's 
port,  they  are  clearly  subject,  and  may  be  detained  without  any  viola- 
tion of  national  or  individual  justice.  Thirdly,  another  right  accrued, 
that  of  bringing  in  for  a  more  deliberate  inquiry  than  could  be  con- 
ducted at  sea,  upon  such  a  number  of  vessels,  even  those  which  pro- 
fessed to  carry  cargoes  with  a  neutral  destination.  Was  there  or  was 
there  not  the  just  and  grave  suspicion,  which  the  treaty  refers  to,  ex- 
cited by  the  circumstances  of  such  number  of  vessels  with  such  car- 
goes intended  to  sail  all  along  the  extended  coasts  of  the  several  public 
enemies  of  this  kingdom,  under  the  protection  of  an  armed  frigate 
associated  with  them  for  the  very  purpose  of  beating  off  by  force  all 
particular  inquiry?  But  supposing  even  that  there  was  not,  is  this 
the  manner  in  which  the  observance  of  the  treaty  or  of  the  law  of 


^The  late  Eprl  of  Mansfield. 
2Lords,  1750. 


468  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

nations  is  to  be  enforced  ?  Certainly  not  by  the  treaty  itself ;  for  the 
remedy  for  infraction  is  provided  in  compensations  to  be  levied,  and 
punishments  to  be  inflicted  upon  delinquents  by  their  own  respective 
sovereigns.  Article  12.  How  stands  it  by  the  general  law?  I  don't 
say  that  cases  may  not  occur  in  which  a  ship  may  be  authorized  by 
the  natural  rights  of  self-preservation  to  defend  itself  against  extreme 
violence  threatened  by  a  cruiser  grossly  abusing  his  commission ;  but 
where  the  utmost  injury  threatened  is  the  being  carried  in  for  inquiry 
into  the  nearest  port,  subject  to  a  full  responsibility  in  costs  and  dam- 
ages if  this  is  done  vexatiously  and  without  just  cause,  a  merchant 
vessel  has  not  a  right  to  say  for  itself  (and  an  armed  vessel  has  not  a 
right  to  say  for  it),  "I  will  submit  to  no  such  inquiry,  but  I  will  take 
the  law  into  my  own  hands  by  force."  What  is  to  be  the  issue,  if  each 
neutral  vessel  has  a  right  to  judge  for  itself  in  the  first  instance 
whether  it  is  rightly  detained,  and  to  act  upon  that  judgment  to  the 
extent  of  using  force?  Surely  nothing  but  battle  and  bloodshed,  as 
often  as  there  is  any  thing  like  an  equality  of  force  or  an  equality  of 
spirit.  For  how  often  will  the  case  occur  in  which  a  neutral  vessel 
will  judge  itself  to  be  rightly  detained?  How  far  the  peace  of  the 
world  will  be  benefited  by  taking  the  matter  from  off  its  present  foot- 
ing and  putting  it  upon  this,  is  for  the  advocates  of  such  a  measure  to 
explain.  I  take  the  rule  of  law  to  be,  that  the  vessel  shall  submit  to 
the  inquiry  proposed,  looking  with  confidence  to  those  tribunals  whose 
noblest  office  (and  I  hope  not  the  least  acceptable  to  them)  is  to  re- 
lieve, by  compensation,  inconveniences  of  this  kind,  where  they  have 
happened  through  accident  or  error ;  and  to  redress  by  compensation 
and  punishment,  injuries  that  have  been  committed  by  design. 

The  second  special  ground  taken  on  the  part  of  the  claimants  was, 
that  the  intention  was  never  carried  into  act.  And  I  agree  with  Dr. 
Lawrence,  that  if  the  intention  was  voluntarily  and  clearly  abandoned, 
an  intention  so  abandoned,  or  even  a  slight  hesitation  about  it,  would 
not  constitute  a  violation  of  right.  But  how  stands  the  fact  in  the 
present  case?  The  intention  gives  way,  so  far  as  it  does  give  way. 
only  to  a  superior  force.  It  is  for  those  who  give  such  instructions  to 
recollect,  that  the  averment  of  an  abandonment  of  intention  cannot 
possibly  be  set  up,  because  the  instructions  are  delivered  to  persons 
who  are  bound  to  obey  them,  and  who  have  no  authority  to  vary.  The 
intention  is  necessarily  unchangeable ;  and  being  so,  I  do  not  see  the 
person  who  could  fairly  contradict  me.  if  I  were  to  assert  that  the  dc- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  469 

livery  and  acceptance  of  such  instructions,  and  the  sailing  under  them, 
were  sufficient  to  complete  the  act  of  hostility.  However  that  might 
be,  the  present  fact  is,  that  the  commander  sails  with  instructions  to 
prevent  inquiry  and  search  by  force,  which  instructions  he  is  bound 
to  obey,  and  which  he  is  prevented  from  acting  upon  to  their  utmost 
extent  only  by  an  irresistible  force.  Under  such  circumstances  how 
does  the  presumption  of  abandonment  arise?  If  it  does,  mark  the 
consequences.  If  he  meets  with  a  superior  force,  he  abandons  his 
hostile  purpose.  If  he  meets  with  an  inferior  force,  he  carries  it  into 
complete  effect.  How  much  is  this  short  of  the  ordinary  state  of 
actual  hostility?  What  is  hostility?  It  is  violence  where  you  can  use 
violence  with  success ;  and  where  you  cannot  it  is  submission  and  strik- 
ing your  colors.  Nothing  can  be  more  clear,  upon  the  perusal  of  these 
attestations,  than  that  this  gentleman  abandoned  his  purpose  merely  as 
a  subdued  person  in  an  unequal  contest.  The  resistance  is  carried  on 
as  far  as  it  can  be ;  and  when  it  can  maintain  itself  no  longer,  fugit 
indignata. 

3.  It  is  said  that  the  papers  were  not  immediately  taken  possession 
of  nor  proceedings  instituted  till  long  after  the  arrival  in  port.  These 
are  unquestionably  irregularities ;  but  I  agree  with  the  King's  advocate 
in  maintaining,  that  they  are  not  such  irregularities  as  will  destroy  the 
captor's  right  of  proceeding,  for  the  claimant  had  his  remedy  in  the 
way  of  a  monition.  How  these  delays  were  occasioned,  whether  in 
consequence  of  pending  negotiations  (as  has  been  repeatedly  asserted 
in  the  course  of  the  argument),  I  am  not  judicially  informed.  If  such 
negotiations  ever  existed.  I  may  have  reason  personally  to  lament  that 
they  have  proved  ineffectual.  But  the  legal  consequence  of  that  in- 
efficiency undoubtedly  is,  that  the  question  of  law  remains  the  same 
as  if  no  such  negotiation  had  ever  been  thought  of. 

4.  It  is  lastly  said,  that  they  have  proceeded  only  against  the  mer- 
chant vessels,  and  not  against  the  frigate,  the  principal  wrong-doer. 
On  what  grounds  this  was  done — whether  on  that  sort  of  comity  and 
respect  which  is  not  unusually  shown  to  the  immediate  property  of 
great  and  august  sovereigns,  or  how  otherwise — I  am,  again,  not  ju- 
dicially informed ;  but  it  can  be  no  legal  bar  to  the  right  of  a  plaintiff 
to  proceed,  that  he  has  for  some  reason  or  other  declined  to  proceed 
against  another  party  against  whom  he  had  an  equal  or  possibly  a 
superior  title.  And  as  to  the  particular  case  of  one  vessel  which  had 
obtained  her  release  and  a  redelivery  of  her  papers,  the  act  of  the  cap- 


470  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

tors  may  perhaps  furnish  a  reasonable  ground  of  distinction  with 
respect  to  her  own  special  case ;  but  its  effect,  be  it  what  it  may,  is 
confined  to  herself,  and  can  be  extended  no  farther. 

I  am  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  special  circumstances  do  not  exist 
which  can  take  the  case  out  of  the  rule  which  is  generally  applicable 
to  such  a  state  of  facts ;  and  I  have  already  stated  that  rule  to  be  the 
confiscation  of  all  the  property  forcibly  withheld  from  inquiry  and 
search.  It  may  be  fitting  (for  anything  that  I  know),  that  other  con- 
siderations should  be  interposed  to  soften  the  severity  of  the  rule,  if 
the  rule  can  be  justly  taxed  with  severity ;  but  I  have  neither  the 
knowledge  of  any  such  considerations,  nor  authority  to  apply  them.  If 
any  negotiations  have  pledged  (as  has  been  intimated)  the  honor  and 
good  faith  of  the  country,  I  can  only  say  that  it  has  been  much  the 
habit  of  this  country  to  redeem  pledges  of  so  sacred  a  nature.  But 
my  business  is  merely  to  decide  whether,  in  a  court  of  the  law  of 
nations,  a  pretension  can  be  legally  maintained  which  has  for  its  pur- 
pose neither  more  nor  less  than  to  extinguish  the  right  of  maritime 
capture  in  war ;  and  to  do  this,  how  ?  by  the  direct  use  of  hostile  force 
on  the  part  of  a  neutral  State.  It  is  high  time  that  the  legal  merit  of 
such  a  pretension  should  be  disposed  of  one  way  or  other — it  has  been 
for  some  few  years  past  preparing  in  Europe — it  is  extremely  fit  that 
it  should  be  brought  to  the  test  of  a  judicial  decision ;  for  a  worse 
state  of  things  cannot  exist,  than  that  of  an  undetermined  conflict 
between  the  ancient  law  of  nations,  as  understood  and  practised  for 
centuries  by  civilized  nations,  and  a  modern  project  of  innovation 
utterly  inconsistent  with  it ;  and,  in  my  apprehension,  not  more  incon- 
sistent with  it  than  wath  the  amity  of  neighboring  States,  and  the  per- 
sonal safety  of  their  respective  subjects. 

The  only  remaining  question  which  I  have  to  consider  is,  the  matter 
of  expenses ;  and  this  I  think  myself  bound  to  dispose  of  with  as  much 
tenderness  as  I  can  use  in  favor  of  individuals.  It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  the  question  itself  was  of  an  importance  and  delicacy 
somewhat  beyond  the  powers  of  decision  belonging  to  such  persons. 
The  authority  of  their  country  has  been  in  some  degree  surprised  in 
this  matter.  The  captors  have  been  extremely  tardy  in  proceeding  to 
adjudication.  Attending  to  all  these  considerations,  I  think  the  claim- 
ants are  clearly  entitled  to  have  their  expenses  charged  upon  the  value 
of  the  property  up  to  the  time  of  the  order  for  further  proof.  From 
that  time,  the  property  might  have  been  withdrawn  upon  bail,  and  it  is 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  471 

no  answer  to  the  court  to  say  that  this  gentleman  or  another  gentleman 
did  not  think  it  advisable  to  commit  their  private  fortunes  in  the  ex- 
tent of  the  security  required.  It  is  the  business  of  foreign  owners 
who  have  brought  their  ships  and  cargoes  into  such  situations  of  diffi- 
culty, to  find  the  means  of  relieving  them  when  the  opportunity  can  be 
used.  I  go  sufficient  lengths  in  allowing  expenses  for  the  further  time 
in  which  orders  could  have  been  obtained  from  Sweden,  and  I  fix  this 
at  the  distance  of  two  months  from  the  order  of  further  proof ;  and, 
condemning  the  ship  and  cargo,  I  direct  all  private  adventures  to  be 
restored. 

This  is  the  substance  of  what  I  have  to  pronounce  judicially  on  this 
case,  after  weighing  with  the  most  anxious  care  the  several  facts  and 
the  learned  arguments  which  have  been  applied  to  them.  I  deliver  it 
to  my  country,  and  to  foreign  countries,  with  little  diffidence  in  the 
rectitude  of  the  judgment  itself ;  I  have  still  more  satisfaction  in  feel- 
ing an  entire  confidence  in  the  rectitude  of  the  considerations  under 
which  it  has  been  formed. 


Letter  from  Mr.  Merry,  British  Charge  d'Affaires  at  Copenhagen, 
to  Count  Bernstorff,  Danish  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign 
Affairs,  regarding  the  Right  of  Visitation  at  Sea^ 

Copenhagen,  April  lo,  1800. 
The  importance  which  the  British  Government  must  necessarily 
attach  to  the  event  which  took  place  in  the  month  of  December  last 
in  the  vicinity  of  Gibraltar,  between  some  frigates  of  the  King  and 
the  frigate  of  His  Danish  Majesty  named  the  Haufeneu,  commanded 
by  Captain  Van  Dockum,  and  the  orders  which  have  been  in  conse- 
quence sent  me  by  my  Court  relative  to  this  affair,  impose  on  me  the 
painful  duty  of  repeating  to  you  in  writing  the  complaint  on  this  sub- 
iect,  which  I  had  the  honor  of  representing  to  you  by  word  of  mouth. 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  10,  p.  22.  "In  the  differences  which  have 
arisen  between  Denmark  and  England  on  the  subject  of  the  right  of  visitation 
by  sea,  the  details  of  the  affair  of  the  first  Danish  frigate  taken  by  the  English 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Gibraltar  have  never  been  officially  published  by  the 
English  Government.  The  above  letter,  in  which  these  details  are  contained,  is 
extracted  from  a  French  paper."     Ibid. 


472  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

in  the  audience  which  you  were  so  kind  as  to  grant  me  for  that  pur- 
pose about  three  days  ago.  The  facts  upon  which  the  question  turns 
in  this  business  are  in  themselves  ver}-  simple,  and  I  believe  such  as 
we  are  already  agreed  upon ;  that  is  to  say,  the  English  frigates  met 
the  Danish  frigate  upon  the  high  sea  escorting  a  convoy.  The  English 
commander,  judging  it  proper  to  avail  himself  of  the  right  of  visiting 
this  convoy,  sent  on  board  the  Danish  frigate  to  demand  from  the 
captain  his  destination.  The  latter  having  answered  that  he  was  then 
going  to  Gibraltar;  the  other  replied,  that  if  he  was  going  to  stop  at 
Gibraltar  he  would  not  visit  his  convoy ;  but  in  case  he  should  not  cast 
anchor  in  that  port,  that  the  visit  would  certainly  take  place.  Captain 
Van  Dockum  then  informed  the  officer  who  had  come  on  board,  that 
he  would  in  such  case  make  resistance.  Upon  this  the  English  cap- 
tain made  the  signal  to  examine  the  convoy.  The  boat  of  the  frigate, 
the  Emerald,  prepared  to  execute  this  order ;  some  musketry  was  fired 
down  from  tlie  Danish  frigate ;  and  one  of  the  English  sailors  was 
thereby  severely  wounded.  This  frigate  also  took  possession  of  a  boat 
of  the  English  frigate,  the  Flora,  and  did  not  release  it  until  after  the 
English  captain  had  made  Captain  Van  Dockum  understand,  that,  if 
he  did  not  surrender  it  immediately,  he  should  commence  hostilities. 
The  Danish  frigate  then  repaired  with  its  convoy  to  the  Bay  of  Gibral- 
tar. There  some  discussions  took  place  upon  this  subject  between 
Lord  Keith,  Admiral  and  Commander  of  the  naval  forces  of  His  Britan- 
nic Majesty  in  the  Mediterranean,  and  Captain  Van  Dockum.  whom 
Ijord  Keith  thought  proper  to  consider  as  personally  responsible,  and 
guilty  of  the  injury'  done  to  a  subject  of  his  King,  thinking  it  impos- 
sible that  this  captain  could  be  authorized  to  act  in  such  a  manner  by 
the  instructions  of  his  Court.  To  clear  up  the  business,  the  English 
admiral  sent  an  officer  to  Captain  Van  Dockum,  praying  that  he  would 
show  him  these  instructions,  and  explain  their  nature.  The  latter  re- 
fused to  let  the  admiral  see  the  instructions,  alleging  that  he  w^as  for- 
bid to  do  so ;  but  he  told  the  officer  that  they  imported  that  he  should 
not  permit  visitation  of  his  convoy,  and  that  in  firing  upon  the  King's 
boats  he  only  fulfilled  his  orders.  The  captain  himself  afterwards  made 
a  like  answer,  and  upon  his  word  of  honor,  in  conversation  with  Lord 
Keith,  in  presence  of  the  Governor  of  Gibraltar;  but  he  promised  at 
the  same  time  to  surrender  himself  before  a  judge,  and  to  give  notice 
of  his  appearance;  and  upon  this  promise  he  was  told  he  might  return 
on  board.     Upon  his  having  entered  his  boat,  he  sent  a  letter  to  the 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  473 

admiral,  in  which  he  refused  to  give  the  notice  required.  These  dis- 
cussions were  terminated  by  a  declaration  which  I^ord  Keith  made 
to  Captain  Van  Dockum,  that,  "if  he  neglected  to  submit,  and  should 
thereby  attempt  to  withdraw  himself  from  justice,  the  affair  should 
be  represented  to  his  Court." 

This,  Count,  is  the  statement  of  the  facts  which  have  occasioned 
the  complaint  which  I  am  charged  to  lay  before  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment. I  flatter  myself  that  you  will  find  it  accurate,  and  conformable 
to  the  correspondence  between  Lord  Keith  and  Captain  Van  Dockum, 
in  your  possession,  as  you  have  done  me  the  honor  to  inform  me. 

The  right  of  visiting  and  examining  merchant  vessels  on  the  high 
sea,  of  whatever  nation  they  may  be  and  whatever  their  cargoes  or 
destinations,  the  British  Government  regards  as  the  incontestable  right 
of  every  belligerent  nation ;  a  right  founded  upon  the  law  of  nations, 
and  which  has  been  generally  admitted  and  acknowledged.  It  follows 
of  consequence,  that  the  resistance  made  to  this  visitation  by  the  com- 
mander of  a  ship  of  war  belonging  to  a  friendly  Power,  must  neces- 
sarily be  considered  an  act  of  hostility,  such  as  he  is  persuaded  could 
not  be  enjoined  by  the  commanders  of  ships  of  war  of  His  Danish 
Majesty  by  their  insti-uctions.  His  Britannic  Majesty  has  therefore 
no  doubt  of  the  displeasure  which  His  Danish  Majesty  will  feel  on 
learning  this  violent  and  indefensible  procedure  of  an  officer  in  his 
service ;  and  the  King  is  persuaded  of  the  promptitude  with  which  His 
Danish  Majestv  will  make  to  His  Majesty  the  formal  disavowal  and 
apology  which  he  has  so  just  a  right  to  expect  from  him  in  the  present 
case,  with  a  reparation  proportioned  to  the  nature  of  the  offense 
committed. 

I  am  specially  charged.  Count,  to  make  of  you  a  demand  of  this 
disavowal,  apology,  and  reparation. 

The  confidence  which  I  have  in  the  acknowledged  justice  of  His 
Danish  Majesty,  mduces  me  to  hope  that  this  simple  and  friendly 
representation  will  suffice  to  obtain  it  with  the  promptitude  which  so 
important  a  case  requires ;  but  I  ought  not  at  the  same  time  to  con- 
ceal from  you,  that  however  great  and  sincere  may  be  the  desire  of 
the  King  my  master  to  maintain  and  cultivate  the  closest  harmony  and 
friendship  with  the  Court  of  Denmark,  nothing  will  induce  His  Majesty 
to  depart  from  this  just  demand. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc., 

Ant.  Merry 


474  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Reply  of  Count  Bernstorflf  to  Mr.  Merry,  April  19,  1800^ 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  having 
laid  before  the  King,  his  master,  the  representations  which  Mr.  Merry 
did  him  the  honor  to  address  to  him  under  date  of  the  IQth  instant, 
with  regard  to  an  encounter  which  took  place  in  the  month  of  Decem- 
ber last  between  a  Danish  frigate  and  certain  English  frigates,  has  just 
been  authorized  to  make  the  following  reply  thereto. 

In  the  first  place,  it  should  be  observed  that  the  version  of  the  affair 
as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Merry's  note  is  not  absolutely  in  accord  with  the 
account  given  by  the  commander  of  the  King's  frigate;  and,  although 
the  difference  between  the  reports  of  this  affair  bears  upon  minor 
points,  we  can  not  refrain  from  calling  attention  to  it,  inasmuch  as 
the  account  on  which  the  British  complaints  are  founded  seem  to 
compromise  the  honor  and  the  good  faith  of  Captain  Van  Dockum. 

According  to  this  account,  that  officer  is  alleged  to  have  given  his 
promise  to  Lord  Keith  to  appear  personally  before  an  English  court, 
and  to  have  broken  his  word  from  the  moment  he  returned  to  his 
vessel,  while  it  is  stated  in  the  report  of  the  said  Captain  that  he  con- 
stantly and  positively  declared,  as  became  him,  "that,  being  vested  with 
the  command  of  one  of  the  King's  war-ships,  he  could  be  responsible 
for  his  conduct  to  his  sovereign  alone." 

The  reports  on  both  sides  agree  for  the  rest  on  the  principal  fact. 
The  question  involved  is  "whether  the  English  frigates  were  in  the 
right  in  attempting,  or  the  commander  of  the  Danish  frigate  in  pre- 
venting visitation  of  the  convoy  under  the  escort  of  the  latter." 

Custom  and  treaties,  it  is  true,  have  conferred  upon  the  belHgerent 
Powers  the  right  to  have  their  war-ships  or  privateers  visit  uncon- 
voyed  neutral  vessels.  But  since  this  right  is  not  a  natural  but  a 
purely  conventional  one,  its  effect  can  not,  without  injustice  or  law- 
lessness, be  arbitrarily  extended  beyond  what  has  been  agreed  upon 
or  granted.  But  none  of  the  independent  maritime  Powers  of  Europe 
has  ever,  so  far  as  the  undersigned  is  aware,  recognized  the  right  to 
visit  neutral  vessels  under  escort  of  one  or  more  war-ships,  and  it  is 
evident  that  they  could  not  do  so  without  degrading  their  flags  and 
renouncing  an  essential  part  of  their  own  rights. 

Far  from  acquiescing  in  this  hitherto  unknown  pretension,  the  ma- 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  130. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  475 

jority  of  these  Powers  have,  since  there  has  been  question  of  this  al- 
leged right,  deemed  it  their  duty  to  set  forth  the  opposite  principle 
in  their  conventions  relating  to  matters  of  this  nature,  as  is  evidenced 
by  a  great  number  of  treaties  concluded  between  the  most  important 
Courts  of  Europe. 

This  distinction  made  between  convoyed  [and  unconvoyed]  vessels 
i?  as  just  as  it  is  natural,  for  the  former  should  not  be  placed  in  the 
same  category  as  the  latter. 

The  visiting  by  privateers  or  war-ships  of  belligerent  Powers  of  un- 
convoyed neutral  vessels  is  founded  on  the  right  to  ascertain  the  flag 
to  which  they  belong  and  to  examine  their  papers.  It  is  merely  a  ques- 
tion of  determining  whether  they  are  neutral  and  whether  their  papers 
are  in  conformity  with  requirements.  The  papers  of  these  vessels 
having  been  found  to  l>e  according  to  rule,  no  further  search  may 
legally  be  undertaken.  Hence  it  is  the  authority  of  the  Government  in 
whose  name  these  documents  have  been  drawn  up  and  issued  that 
gives  the  belligerent  Power  the  necessar)'  assurance. 

But  the  neutral  Government,  by  convoying  with  its  war-ships  the 
commercial  vessels  of  its  subjects,  gives  belligerent  Powers  a  guaran- 
tee that  is  more  authoritative  and  still  more  positive  than  is  that  fur- 
nished by  the  documents  with  which  these  vessels  are  furnished ;  and 
it  could  not,  without  dishonor  to  itself,  admit  any  doubts  or  suspicions 
on  this  point,  for  they  would  be  as  injurious  to  it  as  they  would  be 
unjust  on  the  part  of  those  who  should  entertain  or  manifest  them. 

If  the  principle  should  be  admitted  that  the  convoy  given  by  a 
sovereign  did  not  guarantee  the  vessels  of  his  subjects  from  search 
by  foreign  war-ships  or  privateers,  it  would  follow  that  the  most 
formidable  squadron  would  not  have  the  right  to  save  the  vessels  en- 
trusted to  its  protection  from  search  by  the  weakest  privateer. 

But  it  can  not  be  reasonably  presumed  that  the  English  Government, 
which  has  always,  and  for  the  best  of  reasons,  shown  itself  to  be 
jealous  of  the  honor  of  its  flag,  and  which  in  the  naval  wars  in  which 
it  has  not  taken  part  has  vigorously  maintained  the  rights  of  neutrality, 
would,  if  the  case  arose,  consider  itself  bound  to  suffer  such  an  afifront ; 
and  the  King  has  too  great  confidence  in  His  Britannic  Majesty's 
equity  and  integrity  to  harbor  the  suspicion  that  it  can  be  his  desire 
to  arrogate  to  himself  a  right  which,  under  similar  circumstances,  he 
would  not  recognize  as  belonging  to  any  other  independent  Power. 

It  would  seem  to  be  sufficient  to  apply  to  the  act  in  question  the 


476  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

necessary  deduction  from  these  considerations  in  order  to  demonstrate 
that  the  commander  of  the  King's  frigate,  in  resisting  an  act  of  vio- 
lence, which  he  had  no  reason  to  expect,  only  did  his  duty,  and  that  it 
was  the  English  frigates  wliich  committed  an  act  in  violation  of  the 
rights  of  a  neutral  sovereign  friendly  to  His  Britannic  Majesty. 

The  King  hesitated  to  make  formal  complaint,  so  long  as  he  looked 
upon  the  affair  as  merely  a  misunderstanding  that  could  be  cleared  up 
by  friendly  explanations  on  the  part  of  the  commanders  of  the  re- 
spective naval  forces  kept  by  the  two  Governments  in  the  Mediter- 
lanean;  but  finding  himself.  wi1±i  great  regret,  disappointed  in  this 
hope,  he  must  needs  insist  upon  the  reparation  which  is  due  him  and 
which  the  justice  and  friendship  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  would  seem 
to  assure  to  him. 

C.  Bernstorff 


Note  from  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  His 
Danish  Majesty,  to  Lord  Grenville,  British  Secretary  of  State 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  relative  to  the  Capture  of  the  Danish 
Frigate  "Freya,"  July  29,  1800^ 

The  undersigned.  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  His  Danish  Majesty,  has 
the  honor  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  His  Royal  Majesty  the  follow- 
ing facts : 

On  the  25th  instant  His  Danish  Majesty's  frigate  Freya,  commanded 
by  Captain  Krabl>e,  which  was  convoying  six  vessels,  was  encountered 
at  the  entrance  to  the  Channel  by  six  English  war-ships  under  the 
command  of  Captain  Baker.  An  officer  from  one  O'f  these  ships  was 
sent  on  board  the  Freya,  informed  himself  of  its  destination,  etc.,  and 
returned  with  the  customary  infomiation.  But  shortly  after  he  came 
back  with  orders  to  visit  the  convoy.  Permission  to  do  so  was  refused 
him.  In  the  meantime  the  other  frigates  approached,  and  one  of  them 
fired  a  shot  at  one  of  the  vessels  of  the  convoy,  which  was  answered 
by  a  shot  from  the  Danish  frigate  across  the  bows  of  the  vessel  that 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  133. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  477 

l^egan  the  attack.  The  English  commander's  frigate  came  nearer  and 
repeated  his  demand,  which  was  refused  by  the  Danish  commander, 
who  protested  "that  the  convoy  had  not  on  board  any  article  of  con- 
traband," and  declared  "that,  in  conformity  with  his  instructions,  he 
would  not  allow  any  boat  to  approach  the  convoy."  A  boat  was  sent 
notwithstanding,  and  the  Freya  fired  a  shot  to  turn  it  back,  but  did  not 
hit  it.  The  English  commander  immediately  fired  a  broadside;  but  it 
was  not  until  the  sight  of  two  wounded  men  convinced  him  that  ef- 
fective hostilities  had  been  begun  that  he  returned  the  broadside,  re- 
pelled force  with  force,  and  continued  the  combat  witli  the  said 
fiag-ship  and  three  others,  until  he  found  himself  obliged  to  yield  to 
the  superior  strength  of  his  assailants  and  to  lower  his  flag  after  having 
honorably  defended  and  uri^held  it  to  the  bitter  end.  The  English 
thereupon  took  possession  of  the  Danish  frigate,  held  Captain  Krabbe 
prisoner  aboard  the  flag-ship,  and  brought  him  with  the  prize  and 
convoy  to  the  Dunes. 

Thus  in  the  midst  of  constant  and  secure  peace  between  two  friendly 
and  allied  nations  there  has  occurred  an  unheard-of  provocation,  the 
enormity  of  which  is  sealed  with  the  innocent  blood  of  the  subjects  of 
both. 

The  aftair  that  has  just  taken  place  is  a  direct  attack  on  the  inde- 
pendence of  Denmark,  a  violation  of  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the 
sovereign,  and  an  act  of  aggression  so  violent  that  it  would  give  rise 
to  the  most  serious  consequences,  if  it  could  be  presumed  that  the  in- 
structions of  the  British  Government  had  authorized  such  extreme 
action  of  a  character  so  incompatible  with  the  friendship  existing  be- 
tween the  two  Courts. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  unfortunate  impression  created  by  the  facts  men- 
tioned, it  is  a  great  consolation  to  the  undersigned  to  feel  that  the 
English  officers  merely  overstepped  their  instructions  through  over- 
eager  and  ill-advised  zeal,  and  that  therefore  His  Britannic  Majesty 
will  not  hesitate,  in  accordance  with  his  well-known  sentiments,  to 
show  his  great  indignation  over  the  act  and  to  give  His  Danish  Majesty 
the  most  complete  satisfaction. 

It  is  under  that  resen.^ation  and  while  waiting  for  orders  from  his 
Court  on  this  subject  that  the  undersigned  confines  himself  now  to  a 
ministerial  demand  for  the  prompt  restitution  of  the  frigate  Freya 
and  its  convoy,  and  reparation  at  the  expense  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment for  all  damage  resulting-  from  the  hostilities  mentioned. 


478  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

His  Excellency  Lord  Greiiville,  to  whom  the  undersigned  has  the 
honor  to  address  this  note,  will  certainly  share  his  just  resentment  of 
the  aforesaid  unfortunate  incident  and  his  hopes  that  satisfactory  repa- 
ration for  the  offense  may  he  made  at  once.  The  undersigned  there- 
fore hastens  to  request  most  urgently  that  his  Excellency  use  his  good 
offices  to  this  end,  and  with  the  utmost  confidence  in  his  Excellency's 
just  and  equitable  point  of  view,  he  has  the  honor  to  reiterate  the  as- 
surance of  his  consideration  and  respect. 

Wedel-Jarlsberg 


Reply  of  Lord  Grenville  to  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  July  30,  1800' 

The  undersigiied,  His  Majesty's  principal  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  has  had  the  honor  to  lay  before  the  King  the  note 
which  he  received  yesterday  from  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  from  the  King  of  Den- 
mark. 

It  was  with  the  greatest  surprise  and  concern  that  His  Majesty 
received  the  first  accounts  of  the  transaction  to  which  that  note  re- 
lates. Studiously  desiring  to  maintain  always  with  the  G^urt  of  Copen- 
hagen those  relations  of  friendship  and  alliance  which  had  so  long 
subsisted  between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark,  His  Majesty  has,  dur- 
ing the  whole  course  of  his  reign,  given  repeated  proofs  of  these  dis- 
positions, which  he  had  flattered  himself  were  reciprocally  entertained 
by  the  Government  of  His  Danish  Majesty.  And  notwithstanding  the 
expressions  made  use  of  in  Count  Wedel's  note.  His  Majesty  can  not 
even  yet  persuade  himself  that  it  is  really  by  the  orders  of  the  King 
of  Denmark,  that  this  state  of  harmony  and  peace  lias  been  thus  sud- 
denly disturbed,  or  that  a  Danish  officer  can  have  acted  conformably 
to  his  instnictions,  in  actually  commencing  hostilities  against  this  coun- 
try by  a  wanton  and  unprovoked  attack  upon  a  British  ship  of  war, 
bearing  His  Majesty's  flag,  and  navigating  the  British  seas. 

^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  10,  p.  70. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  479 

The  impressions  which  such  an  event  has  naturally  excited  in  His 
Majesty's  breast  have  received  additional  force  from  the  perusal  of 
a  note,  in  which  satisfaction  and  reparation  are  claimed  as  due  to  the 
aggressors  from  those  who  have  sustained  this  insult  and  injury. 

His  Majesty,  allowing  for  the  difficulty  in  which  all  neutral  nations 
were  placed  by  the  unprecedented  conduct  and  peculiar  character  of 
his  enemy,  has  on  many  occasions,  during  the  present  war,  forborne 
to  assert  his  rights,  and  to  claim  from  the  Danish  Government  the 
impartial  discharge  oi  the  duties  of  that  neutrality  which  it  professed 
a  disposition  to  maintain.  But  the  deliberate  and  open  aggression 
which  he  has  now  sustained  can  not  be  passed  over  in  a  similar  man- 
ner. The  lives  of  his  brave  seamen  have  been  sacrificed,  the  honor 
of  his  flag  has  been  insulted,  almost  in  sight  of  his  own  coasts ;  and 
these  proceedings  are  supported  by  calling  in  question  those  indis- 
putable rights  founded  on  the  clearest  principles  of  the  law  of  nations, 
from  which  His  Majesty  never  can  depart,  and  the  teauperate  exercise 
of  which  is  indispensably  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  the  dearest 
interests  of  his  empire. 

The  undersigned  has,  in  all  his  reports  to  His  Majesty,  rendefed  full 
justice  to  the  personal  dispositions  which  he  has  uniformly  found  on 
the  part  of  Count  Wedel,  to  remove  all  grounds  of  misunderstanding 
between  the  two  countries.  He  can  not,  therefore,  now  forbear  to  urge 
him  to  represent  this  matter  to  his  Court  in  its  true  light,  to  do  away 
with  those  false  impressions,  under  which  (if  at  all)  a  conduct  so  in- 
jurious to  His  Majesty  can  have  been  authorized;  and  to  consult  the 
interests  of  both  countries,  but  especially  those  of  Denmark,  by  biearing 
his  testimony  to  the  dispositions  with  which  His  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment is  animated ;  and  by  recommending  to  his  Court,  with  all  that 
earnestness  which  the  importance  of  the  occasion  both  justifies  and  re- 
quires, that  these  dispositions  may,  in  so  critical  a  conjuncture,  find  an 
adequate  return ;  and  that  a  speedy  and  satisfactory  answer  may  be 
given  to  the  demand  which  His  Majesty  has  directed  to  be  made  in  his 
name  at  Copenhagen,  both  of  reparation  for  what  is  past,  and  of  se- 
curity against  the  repetition  of  these  outrages. 

In  order  to  give  the  greater  weight  to  His  Majesty's  representations 
on  this  subject,  and  to  afford  at  the  same  time  the  means  of  such  ex- 
planations respecting  it,  as  may  avert  the  necessity  of  those  extremi- 
ties to  which   His   Majesty   looks   with  the  greatest    reluctance.   His 


480  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Majesty  has  charged  Lard  Whitworth  with  a  special  mission  to  the 
Court  of  Denmark,  and  that  Minister  will  immediately  sail  for  his 
destination. 

That  Court  can  not  but  see  in  this  determination  a  new  proof  of  the 
King's  desire  to  conciliate  the  preservation  of  peace  with  the  main- 
tenance of  the  fundamental  rights  and  interests  of  his  empire. 

Grenville 

JuJy  so,  i8oo. 


Reply  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  Lord  Grenville,  August  2,  1800' 

The  undersigned,  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  His  Danish  Majesty, 
confines  himself  to  acknowledging  the  ministerial  note  of  Lord  Gren- 
ville, dated  the  30th  ultimo,  in  reply  to  his  of  the  29th.  He  immediately 
informed  his  Court  thereof,  as  well  as  of  the  mission  with  which  Lord 
Whitworth  is  charged  to  Denmark. 

But  pending  the  transfer  to  Copenhagen  of  the  discussion  of  the 
hostilities  committed,  the  undersigned  hastens  to  repeat  his  urgent  de- 
mand with  regard  to  the  restitution  of  the  frigate  Freya,  in  such  con- 
dition that  it  can  continue  its  voyage,  and  with  regard  to  its  convoy. 
Since  tlie  British  Government,  by  means  of  superior  forces,  succeeded 
in  making  it  impossible  for  His  Danish  Majesty's  frigate  to  protect  its 
convoy  from  the  carnang  out  of  an  act  that  is  contested  and  in  dis- 
pute, and  since  both  the  frigate  and  its  convoy  were  brought  into  an 
English  port,  where  the  searching  of  the  vessels  was  effected  without 
revealing  any  contraband  article  in  their  innocent  cargoes,  the  under- 
signed is  pleased  to  believe  that  the  British  Government  will,  by  its 
acts,  give  the  Government  of  Denmark  conciliatory  assurance  that  it 
is  far  from  desiring  to  aggravate  the  difference  by  a  continuation  of 
hostile  action,  and.  by  restoring  the  vessels  mentioned,  show  that  it 
treats  them  differently  from  those  captured  from  the  enemy. 

The  undersigned  begs  Lord  Grenville  to  be  good  enough  to  support 
his   just   demand   with   his   good   offices   and    to   consider   compliance 


^Translation.     French  text.  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  cd.,  vol.  7,  p.  137. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  481 

therewith  as  paving  the  way  for  an  explanation  that  will  wipe  out  the 
bad  impression  of  the  past  and  ensure  the  continuance  of  the  har- 
mony which  has  been  a  source  of  such  satisfaction  and  happiness  to 
the  sovereigns  of  tlie  two  nations. 

Wedel-Jarlsberg 


Reply  of  Lord  Granville  to  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  August  4,  1800^ 

The  undersigned,  His  Majesty's  Principal  Secretary  of  State  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  has  had  the  honor  to  lay  before  the  King  the  note 
which  was  transmitted  to  him  on  the  second  of  this  month  by  Count 
Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
of  His  Danish  Majesty. 

As  regards  the  demand  made  by  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  for  the 
release  of  the  Danish  frigate  Freya  and  its  convoy,  he  has  orders  from 
His  Majesty  to  inform  the  Minister  that,  however  much  His  Majesty 
may  desire  to  manifest  on  all  occasions  his  regard  and  friendship  for 
the  King  of  Denmark,  nevertheless,  since  the  capitain  of  the  Freya  saw 
fit  to  begin,  without  any  provocation,  actual  hostilities  with  one  of  his 
war-ships  and  wantonly  to  sacrifice  the  lives  of  subjects  of  both  sover- 
eigns in  a  fight  into  which  he  entered  without  cause  and  which  could 
only  lead  to  unnecessary  shedding  of  blood,  the  frigate  and  the  convoy 
which  was  under  its  orders  must  needs  await  the  outcome  of  the  suit, 
which  shall  be  brought  in  the  name  of  His  Majesty  for  the  satisfac- 
tion due  for  such  unwarranted  and  blameworthy  conduct. 

This  action  on  the  part  of  His  Majesty  is  all  the  more  necessary, 
since  the  present  case  is  not  the  first  in  which  His  Majesty  has  lately 
had  cause  to  complain  of  like  conduct,  and  since  the  extreme  patience 
which  was  displayed  in  the  case  of  the  Phoenix  appears  to  have  pro- 
duced an  effect  which  has  so  little  fulfilled  the  hope  and  just  expecta- 
tion of  His  Majesty.  But  His  Majesty  anticipates  with  pleasure  the 
time  when  the  Court  of  Copenhagen  shall,  by  action  in  conformity 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  138. 


482  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

with  established  custom  and  the  law  of  nations,  as  well  as  with  the 
honor  of  His  Majesty's  flag,  make  it  possible  for  His  Majesty  to  mani- 
fest for  his  part  sentiments  of  friendship  for  a  Power  to  which  he  is 
bound  by  so  many  ties. 

Grenville 


Note  from  Lord  Whitworth,  British  Minister  at  Copenhagen,  to 
Count  Bernstorff,  relative  to  the  Capture  of  the  Danish  Frigate 
"Freya,"  August  12,  1800^ 

His  Britannic  Majesty,  animated  by  the  most  sincere  desire  to  main- 
tain uninterruptedly  with  the  Court  of  Copenhagen  those  relations  of 
friendship  and  alliance  which  have  so  long  existed  between  Great 
Britain  and  Denmark,  has  been  surprised  and  grieved  at  the  hostile 
step  by  which  that  Government  has  broken  these  relations.  His  Maj- 
esty has  never  ceased  to  give  the  most  evident  proof  of  this  disposi- 
tion on  his  part ;  and  he  has  flattered  himself  with  the  hope  of  a  return 
to  such  sentiments  on  the  part  of  His  Danish  Majesty. 

In  spite  of  the  expressions  which  His  Danish  Majesty's  Minister 
has  employed  in  an  official  note  which  he  has  seen  fit  to  present  to  his 
Ministry  on  the  subject  of  the  detention  of  the  frigate  Freya  and  its 
convoy,  His  Majesty  cannot  even  yet  believe  that  it  is  really  by  order 
of  His  Danish  Majesty  that  peace  and  good  understanding  have  been 
so  suddenly  interrupted  or  that  a  Danish  officer  has  acted  in  accord- 
ance with  his  instructions  in  beginning  hostilities  against  his  States  by 
a  premeditated  and  unprovoked  attack  on  an  English  war-ship,  flying 
His  Majesty's  flag  and  sailing  in  British  seas. 

The  feeling  which  such  an  event  would  naturally  arouse  has  grown 
more  intense  as  a  result  of  a  demand  for  reparation,  alleged  to  be  due 
the  aggressors  by  those  who  suffered  insult  and  injury. 

His  Majesty,  appreciating  the  difficulties  to  which  neutral  nations 
have  been  exposed  by  the  unparalleled  conduct  and  peculiar  character 
of  his  enemy,  has  on  various  occasions  in  the  course  of  this  war,  ab- 
stained from  demanding  his  rights  and  has  shut  his  eyes  to  the  partial 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  140. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  483 

fulfilment  of  the  duties  of  neutrality,  which  the  Danish  Government 
has  professed  itself  as  being  desirous  to  observe ;  but  the  open  and 
deliberate  attack  which  he  has  lately  suffered  cannot  be  looked  upon 
with  the  same  indifiference.  The  blood  of  his  brave  sailors  has  been 
shed ;  the  honor  of  his  flag  has  been  sullied  almost  in  sight  of  his  own 
coasts ;  and  these  acts  have  been  upheld  by  throwing  doubt  upon  in- 
contestable rights  founded  on  the  clearest  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations,  which  His  Majesty  can  never  abandon,  and  the  calm  and  con- 
tinued maintenance  of  which  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  most  cherished  interests  of  his  empire. 

The  undersigned  is  therefore  specially  charged  to  present  this  mat- 
ter in  its  true  light,  to  remove  the  false  impressions  which  may  have 
permitted,  but  cannot  justify,  a  course  of  conduct  so  injurious  to  His 
Majesty,  and  to  demand  with  the  energy  that  the  importance  of  the 
crisis  requires  reparation  for  the  act  and  security  against  the  repeti- 
tion of  similar  outrages. 

The  undersigned  flatters  himself  with  the  hope  that  the  Danish 
Ministry  will  do  him  the  justice  to  believe  that,  while  he  manifests  a 
just  solicitude  for  the  interests  of  the  King  his  master,  he  is  not  in- 
diflferent  to  the  interests  of  Denmark,  which  has  at  all  times  been 
linked  to  Great  Britain  by  ties  of  friendship  and  alliance.  He  hopes 
that  he  will  find  in  the  Danish  Ministry  a  disposition  similar  to  his  own, 
and  that  their  negotiations  will  result  in  satisfaction  such  as  Great 
Britain  itself  would  not  hesitate  to  give  in  such  a  case  and  a  renewal 
of  confidence  and  good  understanding  between  the  two  States.  Such 
is  the  object  of  his  mission,  and  such  is  the  sincerest  wish  of  his  heart. 

Whitworth 


Reply  of  Count  Bernstorff  to  Lord  Whitworth,  August  16,  1800' 

The  King  learned  with  as  much  regret  as  surprise  of  the  incident 
which  has  caused  the  detention  of  his  frigate,  the  Freya,  and  of  the 
convoy  that  was  under  its  protection.  His  Majesty,  however,  far  from 
presuming  that  the  attack  on  the  security  of  a  convoy  sailing  under  the 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  141. 


484  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

protection  and  safeguard  of  his  flag  could  have  been  premeditated,  or 
that  so  unequal  and  so  unexpected  a  fight  could  have  been  the  result 
of  an  order  emanating  from  the  British  Government.  He  saw  in  this 
unfortunate  encounter  nothing  more  than  the  act  of  an  over-zealous 
commander  of  an  English  squadron,  who  made  unwarranted  use  of 
his  superiority  in  strength  over  a  foreign  vessel  which  was  sailing  in 
waters  along  the  coast  of  a  country  between  which  and  Denmark  there 
exists  bonds  of  friendship  and  alliance  and  was  therefore  unprepared 
for  a  hostile  surprise. 

But  nothing  can  equal  the  astonishment  of  His  Majesty  in  learning 
from  the  note  which  the  undersigned  had  the  honor  of  receiving  from 
Lord  Whitworth  that  the  British  Government,  in  refusing  the  satis- 
faction which  is  manifestly  due,  retorts  with  a  demand  against  Den- 
mark, imputing  to  it  without  scruple  an  act  of  aggression,  which  is 
disproved  by  a  simple  examination  of  the  facts. 

It  is  indeed  a  confusion  of  the  clearest  conceptions  and  an  inver- 
sion of  the  most  natural  and  least  equivocal  sense  of  things  and  words 
to  hold  that  lawful  resistance,  provoked  by  a  gratuitous  attack  upon 
the  rights  and  honor  of  an  independent  flag,  should  be  considered  an 
act  of  aggression,  and  of  premeditated  aggression. 

Demonstration  is  superfluous  when  facts  speak  for  themselves ;  and 
Denmark  does  not  fear  to  appeal  in  this  matter  to  the  judgment  of 
all  the  impartial  Powers  of  Europe. 

If  it  were  possible  to  suppose  that  the  King  had  any  idea  of  attack- 
ing Great  Britain  or  any  hostile  intentions  against  that  country,  His 
Majesty  would  not  hesitate  openly  to  disavow  it;  but  no  such  possi- 
bility exists,  and  the  English  Government  itself,  if  it  weighs  the  cir- 
cumstances calmly  and  without  prejudice,  could  have  no  suspicion  in 
this  regard. 

But  even  supposing  that  the  commander  of  the  Danish  frigate  had 
overstepped  the  limits  of  his  duty  and  that  the  English  Government 
was  thereby  warranted  in  demanding  satisfaction,  it  still  clearly  fol- 
lows from  the  nature  of  the  case  that  this  demand  could  not  be  made 
until  after  the  frigate  and  its  convoy  had  been  released,  Denmark 
clearly  being,  until  that  is  done,  the  injured  party,  and  consequently  the 
only  one  who  has  grounds  for  complaint. 

It  is  this  preliminary  demand  to  release  without  delay  the  King's 
frigate  and  the  convoy  under  its  protection,  which  Lord  Whitworth 
is  requested  to  transmit  to  his  Court  and  to  support  with  his  good 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  485 

offices.  He  will  be  good  enough  to  add  the  assurance  that  the  King 
will  eagerly  accept  any  proposition  compatible  with  the  honor  of  his 
flag  and  the  dignity  of  his  crown,  which  tends  to  maintain  harmony 
between  the  two  Courts,  as  this  always  has  been  and  always  will  be 
one  of  the  principal  objects  desired  and  sought  by  Denmark. 

The  King  does  not  deem  it  necessary  to  reiterate  to  His  Britannic 
Majesty  protestations  of  friendship  on  an  occasion  which  has  neither 
belied  it  nor  placed  it  in  doubt.  Nor  does  His  Majesty  permit  him- 
self to  ask  for  evidence  of  the  friendship  of  his  august  ally.  He 
merely  appeals  to  the  equity  of  a  virtuous  and  upright  sovereign,  who 
surely  does  not  believe  that  he  will  add  to  the  glory  of  his  reign  or  to 
the  splendor  of  his  power  by  an  act  of  injustice  toward  him. 

The  undersigned,  who  has  long  been  prepossessed  in  favor  of  Lord 
Whitworth,  is  pleased  to  have  confidence  in  his  personal  sentiments 
and  trusts  that  he  may  succeed  in  winning  the  confidence  of  Lord 
Whitworth. 

C.  Bernstorff 


Reply  of  Lord  Whitworth  to  Count  Bernstorff,  August  21,  1800' 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  the  official 
note  which  Count  Bernstorff  has  addressed  to  him  in  reply  to  the  note 
which  he  had  the  honor  to  hand  him  the  day  after  his  arrival,  the  ob- 
ject of  which  was  "to  demand  in  the  name  of  the  King  satisfaction 
for  the  insult  to  the  flag  by  the  unprovoked  attack  of  a  Danish  officer, 
acting  in  accordance  with  the  orders  of  his  Court,  and  security  against 
similar  outrages.'' 

As  for  the  demand  "to  release  the  Danish  frigate  and  its  convoy, 
which  Count  Bernstorff  still  insists  was  unjustly  arrested,"  the  under- 
signed believes  that  he  is  warranted  in  holding  that,  according  to  the 
opinion  of  the  most  enlightened  jurists  who  have  treated  this  subject, 
"any  neutral  vessel  which  resists  search  in  such  a  case  becomes  by  that 
act  liable  to  confiscation  and  may  be  taken  as  a  lawful  prize,"  and  that 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.   143. 


486  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

this  principle  has  at  all  times  been  universally  recognized,  except  by 
those  who  have  had  some  special  interest  in  disregarding  it. 

Furthermore,  the  right  that  the  King  claims  is  universal  and  neces- 
sarily results  from  a  state  of  war.  Special  treaties  are  applicable  only 
to  modifications  and  limitations  of  this  right. 

If  the  principle  is  once  admitted  that  a  Danish  frigate  may  legally 
guarantee  from  search  six  merchant  ships  of  that  nation,  it  naturally 
follows  that  that  Power  or  any  other  Power  whatsoever  may  by  means 
of  the  smallest  war-ship  extend  the  same  protection  over  the  entire 
commerce  of  the  enemy  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

It  will  only  be  necessary  to  find  in  the  whole  civilized  world  a  single 
neutral  State,  however  insignificant,  sufficiently  well  disposed  toward 
our  enemies  to  lend  them  its  flag  and  to  cover  their  commerce,  without 
incurring  the  slightest  risk ;  for  the  moment  examination  is  not  per- 
mitted, fraud  need  not  fear  discovery. 

The  undersigned  is  pained  to  learn  from  the  note  which  Count  Bern- 
storff  has  just  handed  him  that,  far  from  showing  a  desire  to  satisfy 
the  just  demand  of  the  King  his  master,  the  Danish  Government  still 
persists  in  maintaining  not  only  the  principle  upon  which  it  bases  its 
attack,  but  also  the  right  to  defend  it  by  force  of  arms. 

In  this  state  of  afifairs,  the  undersigned  has  no  alternative  than 
strictly  to  perform  his  duty  by  again  insisting  on  the  satisfaction  de- 
manded by  the  King  his  master  and  by  declaring  to  Count  Bernstorflf 
that,  in  spite  of  his  sincere  desire  to  be  the  instrument  of  reconcilia- 
tion between  the  two  Courts  he  shall  be  obliged  to  leave  Copenhagen, 
together  with  the  entire  English  mission,  within  eight  days  from  the 
date  of  the  signing  of  this  note,  unless  the  Danish  Government  adopts 
in  the  meantime  a  course  more  in  conformity  with  the  interests  of  the 
two  countries,  and  especially  those  of  Denmark,  with  which  His  Maj- 
esty has  constantly  desired  and  still  desires  to  continue  on  terms  of 
friendship  and  alliance. 

The  undersigned  has  therefore  the  honor  to  repeat  to  Count  Bern- 
storfiF  that  it  is  necessary  for  him,  as  well  as  the  King's  mission,  to 
quit  Copenhagen  within  eight  days,  unless  a  satisfactory  reply  is  given 
him  before  the  expiration  of  that  period.  He  begs  Count  BemstoriT 
to  be  good  enough  to  accept  the  assurances  of  his  most  distinguished 

consideration. 

Whitworth 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  487 

Reply  of  Count  BernstorfT  to  Lord  Whitworth,  August  26,  1800' 

The  undersigned,  having  laid  before  the  King  his  master  the  note 
which  Lord  Whitworth  did  him  the  honor  to  hand  him  on  the  21st 
instant,  has  just  been  authorized  to  make  the  following  reply. 

His  Majesty  is  extremely  surprised  to  learn  that  Lord  Whitworth 
attempts  to  base  the  continued  detention  of  the  frigate  Freya  and  of 
its  convoy  on  the  principle  that  a  neutral  vessel  which  resists  visita- 
tion by  one  or  more  armed  vessels  belonging  to  a  belligerent  Power 
renders  itself,  merely  by  this  resistance,  liable  to  confiscation.  This 
principle,  such  as  it  is,  quite  generally  though  not  universally  recog- 
nized, applies  only  to  unconvoyed  merchant  ships,  which,  not  being 
considered  as  armed,  can  only  expect  security  from  the  innocence  of 
their  voyage,  the  respect  due  their  flag,  and  the  genuineness  of  the 
documents  with  which  they  have  been  furnished  by  their  Govern- 
ments. 

The  extension  of  the  application  of  this  principle  to  resistance  by 
a  war-ship  on  behalf  of  vessels  under  its  convoy,  would  be  as  arbitrary 
as  it  is  novel,  and  absolutely  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  the  prin- 
ciple mentioned. 

If  the  British  Government  considers  that  it  has  authorities  or  proofs 
in  support  of  its  contention,  Denmark  must  ask  that  it  state  them  more 
specifically,  in  order  to  meet  them  with  the  authorities  and  proofs  that 
have  always  appeared  to  the  Danish  Government  to  be  so  decisively 
in  favor  of  its  stand,  as  to  determine  its  opinion  in  this  regard,  without 
its  ever  having  had  to  sacrifice  its  conviction  to  its  individual  interests. 

As  to  the  general  question,  concerning  the  alleged  right  to  visit 
neutral  vessels  under  convoy,  the  undersigned  must  call  attention  to 
the  contents  of  the  note  which  he  handed  to  Mr.  Merry  under  date  of 
April   19. 

If  Lord  Whitworth  believes  that  he  has  destroyed  the  force  of  the 
arguments  set  forth  in  that  note  by  his  observation  that  by  means  of 
the  right  guaranteeing  from  visit  merchant  ships  which  are  under  the 
escort  of  a  war-ship,  the  least  powerful  neutral  State  would  be  able 
with  impunity  to  cover  with  its  flag  illicit  commerce,  the  undersigned 
begs  to  remark  that  a  Government  which  would  degrade  itself  to  the 
point  of  lending  its  flag  to  such  an  act  of  fraud  would  thereby  place 
itself  beyond  the  pale  of  neutrality  and  consequently  justify  the  bellig- 
erent Power,  to  whose  prejudice  the  said  fraud  had  been  committed. 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.   145. 


488  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180& 

to  take  measures  which,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  would  not  be 
permitted. 

The  State  that  neglects  its  duties  undoubtedly  exposes  itself  to  the 
risk  of  losing  its  rights ;  but  suspicion  of  base  conduct  would  be  as 
injurious  to  the  Government  which  did  not  deserve  it  as  it  would  be 
dishonoring  to  the  Government  which  should  advance  such  suspicion 
without  grounds.  Such  a  situation,  however,  could  not  exist  between 
Denmark  and  Great  Britain.  The  English  Government  are  surely  not 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Danish  officers  in  command  of  convoys  are 
held  personally  responsible  to  see  that  the  cargoes  of  the  vessels 
belonging  to  these  convoys  do  not  contain  articles  prohibited  by  the 
rules  of  the  law  of  nations  or  by  treaties  existing  between  Denmark 
and  belligerent  Powers ;  and  it  is  easy  to  see  that  it  would  be  incom- 
parably more  difficult  to  elude  the  vigilance  of  these  officers  than  the 
search  of  those  who  should  attempt  to  exercise  on  these  vessels  a  right, 
which  is  as  odious  in  principle  as  it  is  futile  in  its  effect. 

This  essential  difference  between  the  principles  of  the  two  Courts 
bringing  into  this  discussion  special  difficulties,  there  would  appear  to 
be  a  no  more  fitting  way  to  remove  them  than  to  have  recourse  to  the 
mediation  of  a  third  Power ;  and  the  King  hesitates  the  less  to  propose 
to  His  Britannic  Majesty  the  mediation  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia, 
since  that  monarch,  the  friend  and  ally  of  both  sovereigns,  will  cer- 
taml}-  have  nothing  more  at  heart  than  to  bring  about  their  reconcilia- 
tion and  to  prevent  an  unfortunate  misunderstanding.  The  King  will 
entrust  his  interest  with  the  utmost  confidence  to  this  mediation;  and 
His  Majesty  will  eagerly  adopt  any  proposals  of  His  Majesty  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  tending  to  effect  a  settlement  compatible  with  the 
honor  of  the  two  Courts. 

The  undersigned  does  not  doubt  that  Lord  Whitworth  will  see  in 
this  proposal  fresh  proof  of  the  sincere  moderation  of  the  King  and 
of  his  unalterable  desire  to  keep  the  friendship  of  His  Britannic  Maj- 
esty. He  begs  him  to  be  good  enough  to  transmit  it  in  this  sense  to  his 
Court.  The  King  would  regret  the  more  to  see  him  depart,  since  His 
Majesty  had  regarded  his  mission  as  a  pledge  of  the  conciliatory  in- 
tentions of  the  London  Court  and  was  pleased  to  believe  that  his  per- 
sonal sentiments  would  help  to  expedite  a  settlement,  for  which  His 
Majesty  has  offered  and  still  offers  him  the  greatest  facilities. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  beg  Lord  Whitworth  to  accept 
renewed  assurances  of  his  most  distinguished  consideration. 

C.  Bernstorff 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  489 

Reply  of  Lord  Whitworth  to  Count  Bemstorff^ 

August  2 "J,  1800. 
Lord  Whitworth  requests  the  Count  de  Bernstorff  to  observe,  that 
if  he  does  not  animadvert  upon  the  arguments  he  has  made  use  of 
upon  this  occasion,  it  is  because  he  thinks  he  shall  render  a  much  more 
essential  service  to  his  Court,  as  well  as  to  that  of  Copenhagen,  by 
abstaining  from  all  that  might  remove  them  from  the  object  which 
both  ought  to  have  equally  at  heart.  With  respect  to  the  mediation 
which  the  Count  de  Bernstorff  proposes  as  the  most  proper  means  of 
doing  away  the  difficulties  of  this  discussion,  the  undersigned  thinks 
he  can  reply  with  certainty,  that,  in  spite  of  the  apparent  misunder- 
standing which  may  have  existed  between  the  two  Courts,  there  is  no 
sovereign  in  Europe  to  whom  the  King  would  refer  himself,  with 
respect  to  his  dearest  interests,  with  more  confidence,  than  the  Emperor 
of  Russia;  no  one  is  more  ready  than  the  undfersigned  to  do  justice  to 
the  loyalty  and  zeal  of  that  sovereign  for  the  good  cause.  But  he 
believes  that,  in  a  similar  case,  it  would  be  useless  to  recur  even  to  that 
intervention,  however  respectable  it  may  be;  and  that  the  Court  of 
Denmark,  introducing  into  the  discussion  the  same  frankness  as  the 
Court  of  London,  and  the  same  desire  of  preventing  speedily  all 
objects  of  fatal  misunderstanding,  will  find  out  the  means  of  effecting 
this  object  without  difficulty. 

Whitworth 


Declaration  by  v^^hich  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia  invited 
Sweden,  Prussia  and  Denmark  to  conclude  a  Convention  for 
the  Reestablishment  of  an  Armed  Neutrality,  August  27,  1800- 

Europe  gave  its  approval  to  the  measures  that  were  taken  by  the 
majoritv  of  maritime  Powers  for  the  establishment,  as  a  sacred  pact, 
of  the  principles  of  a  wise  and  impartial  neutrality,  when  a  naval  war, 
which  had  broken  out  in  1780  between  two  great  Powers,  laid  upon 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  10,  p.  97. 

-August  15,  1800,  old  style.     Translation.     French  text  in  British  and  Foreign 
State  Papers,  vol.  1,  pt.  1,  p.  334. 


490  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  other  nations  the  obHgation  of  providing  for  the  security  of  their 
subjects'  commerce  and  navigation.  Every  act  that  is  founded  on 
justice  should  obtain  general  assent;  and  in  this  case  all  that  was  done 
was  to  put  again  into  effect  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations.  Russia 
had  at  that  time  the  inestimable  advantage  of  carrying  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  these  principles  to  their  ultimate  goal,  and  she  was,  so  to 
speak,  the  regulator  of  the  different  measures  which  should  cause 
these  principles  to  be  respected.  Each  of  the  Powers  which  acceded 
thereto  enjoyed  innumerable  advantages  therefrom,  and  this  arrange- 
ment served  as  a  basis  for  all  the  treaties  of  commerce  that  Russia  con- 
cluded thereafter.  General  approval  had  made  of  the  principles  on 
which  it  rested  a  kind  of  code  of  the  nations ;  it  was  at  the  same  time 
the  code  of  humanity.  The  common  interest  of  mankind  guaranteed  its 
maintenance  and  execution. 

But  perhaps  there  was  too  little  effort  to  give  these  principles  a 
new  sanction  at  the  time  when,  a  great  Power  having  reached  the 
point  of  dissolution,  nearly  all  the  other  nations  felt  the  fatal  influ- 
ence thereof ;  when  the  majority  of  political  bonds  were  broken  or 
took  another  direction  as  a  result  of  the  war  which  was  not  long  in 
breaking  out — a  war  so  different  from  those  that  had  preceded  it, 
and  whose  events,  which  were  so  multifarious  and  extraordinary,  de- 
stroyed all  former  combinations.  Attention  being  absorbed  by  events 
of  such  vital  interest,  it  was  impossible  to  give  the  necessary  care  to 
the  maintenance  of  these  salutary  stipulations.  On  the  one  hand,  jus- 
tice should  have  led  the  belligerent  Powers  to  present  a  method  of 
guarantee;  and  the  neutral  Powers,  which  were  confident  that  this 
would  be  done,  believed  that  they  had  sufficiently  ensured  freedom  of 
navigation  and  commerce  to  cause  it  to  be  respected  at  least  by  legiti- 
mate Governments,  when  a  new  incident  proved  to  what  extent  inde- 
pendence of  Crowns  can  be  exposed  to  danger,  unless  the  principles 
and  maxims  were  reestablished,  which  alone  can  serve,  during  this 
war,  as  the  basis  for  tranquillity  and  security  of  neutral  Powers. 

On  July  13/25  last,  an  English  frigate  met  at  the  entrance  to  the 
Channel  a  Danish  frigate  which  was  convoying  to  different  ports  sev- 
eral vessels  of  its  nation.  The  Danish  captain,  after  his  declaration 
that  he  had  no  article  of  contraband  on  board,  having  resisted  the  visi- 
tation of  his  vessel,  was  attacked  and  forced  to  yield  to  superior 
strength.     It,  as  well  as  its  convoy,  was  taken  to  English  ports. 

The  first  care  of  His  Danish  Majesty,  the  friend  and  ally  of  His 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  491 

Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  was  to  inform  this  latter 
sovereign  of  this  event  and  to  consult  him  as  to  how  they  should  re- 
gard this  self-evident  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  neutrality  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  treaty  of  com- 
merce between  Denmark  and  Russia. 

Although  His  Imperial  Majesty  up  to  the  present  moment  can  not 
but  believe  that  such  a  violation  will  be  highly  disapproved  of  by  His 
Britannic  Majesty,  and  although  His  Majesty  is  pleased  to  believe 
that  the  equity  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  will  induce  him  not  only  to 
refuse  to  approve  this  act,  but  also  to  give  the  Court  of  Denmark 
satisfaction  proportional  to  the  insult,  nevertheless  His  Imperial  Maj- 
esty, in  order  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  acts  of  violence  in 
future,  recognizes  the  necessity  of  reestablishing  the  bases  of  neu- 
trality, under  whose  protection  his  subjects,  as  well  as  those  of  neu- 
tral Powers,  may  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  industry  and  all  the  advan- 
tages of  neutral  nations,  without  being  exposed  hereafter  to  arbi- 
trary measures  which  none  of  the  belligerent  Powers  can  permit  with 
impunity  against  them. 

As  it  is  clearly  to  the  interest  of  His  Imperial  Majesty,  both  with 
respect  to  the  navigation  of  his  own  subjects  and  that  of  the  nations 
nearest  to  his  ports,  to  protect  from  such  acts  of  aggression  or  vio- 
lence the  seas  which  bathe  the  shores  of  Russia,  he  invites  the  Powers 
that  have  ports  in  these  regions,  and  particularly  Their  Majesties  the 
Kings  of  Prussia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  to  accede,  together  with 
His  Imperial  Majesty,  to  the  measures  that  he  shall  propose  to  them 
successively  to  reestablish  in  all  their  force  the  principles  of  armed 
neutrality,  and  thus  to  ensure  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  His  Majesty 
announces  at  the  same  time  to  these  sovereigns,  bv  the  present  declara- 
tion, that  he  will  use  all  the  force  that  his  dignity  requires  to  uphold 
the  honor  of  his  flag  and  the  flags  of  his  allies,  to  guarantee  their  sub- 
jects from  any  violation  of  the  rights  sanctioned  by  all  peoples,  and  to 
secure  for  them,  under  the  protection  of  their  respective  Governments, 
all  the  advantages  that  result  from  freedom  of  commerce  and  naviga- 
tion. 

His  Imperial  Majesty,  likewise  animated  by  sentiments  of  justice 
and  impartiality,  declares  that,  while  he  shall  establish  a  rule  for  the 
strict  observance  of  the  rights  of  neutrality,  he  will  not  impair  the 
force  of  any  one  of  them,  and  that  the  measures  which  he  shall  in  his 
wisdom  adopt  shall  guide  the  conduct  of  his  commanding  officers  and 


492  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

subjects,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  most  rigorous  equity, 
and  in  such  a  way  that  the  belligerent  Powers  themselves  will  be 
constrained  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  his  provisions  and  the 
beneficent  purity  of  his  views. 

The  Minister  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  addresses,  by  order  of  his 
sovereign,  the  present  declaration  to  his  Excellency  Baron  de  Stedingk, 
Ambassador  Extraordinary  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden,  re- 
questing him  to  communicate  it  immediately  to  his  Court. 

Count  de  Rostopsin 


Count  Panin 


His  Excellency  Baron  de  Stedingk. 


Preliminary  Convention  between  Denmark  and  Great  Britain  re- 
garding the  "Freya"  Dispute,  August  29,  1800^ 

Their  Danish  and  Britannic  Majesties,  equally  animated  by  a  desire 
to  prevent  by  means  of  a  preliminary  friendly  agreement  the  conse- 
quences that  might  result  from  the  difference  which  has  arisen  between 
them  as  a  result  of  the  encounter  which  took  place  between  the  Dan- 
ish frigate  Freya  and  certain  English  war-ships,  and  to  restore  in 
full  measure  the  relations  of  friendship  and  confidence  which  have  so 
long  united  them,  have  to  this  end  appointed  and  constituted  as  their 
plenipotentiaries:  His  Danish  Majesty,  Count  Bernstorff,  his  Cham- 
berlain and  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs;  and  His  Britannic 
Majesty,  Lord  Whit  worth.  Knight  of  the  Bath,  who  having  com- 
municated to  each  other  their  respective  full  powers  have  agreed  upon 
the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

The  question  of  right,  with  relation  to  the  visiting  of  neutral  vessels 
under  convoy,  shall  be  deferred  to  a  subsequent  discussion. 

Article  2 

The  Danish  frigate  Freya  and  the  vessels  under  its  convoy  shall  be 
immediately  released  and  the  said  frigate  shall  receive  in  the  ports  of 


1  Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccucil,  2cl  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  149. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  493 

His  Britannic  Majesty  all  that  it  may  require  for  repairs,  according 
to  the  practice  in  vogue  between  friendly  and  allied  Powers, 

Article  3 

To  prevent  the  renewal  of  disputes  of  the  same  nature  as  the  result 
of  similar  encounters,  His  Danish  Majesty  shall  suspend  the  sending 
of  convoys  until  subsequent  explanations  on  this  same  subject  shall 
have  resulted  in  a  definitive  convention. 

Article  4 

If,  however,  encounters  of  this  sort  should  occur  before  the  instruc- 
tions intended  to  prevent  them  can  be  put  into  operation,  they  shall 
have  no  serious  consequences,  and  the  settlement  thereof  shall  be 
considered  as  being  included  in  the  matters  covered  by  the  present 
convention. 

Article  5 

This  convention  shall  be  ratified  within  three  weeks  from  the  date 
on  which  it  is  signed,  or  sooner  if  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  we  the  undersigned  plenipotentiaries  of  Their 
Danish  and  Britannic  Majesties,  have  signed  in  their  names,  and  by 
virtue  of  our  full  powers,  the  present  convention,  and  have  hereto 
affixed  the  seal  of  our  arms. 

Done  at  Copenhagen,  Augi:st  29,  1800. 

[L.  S.]     C.  Bernstorff 
[L.  S.]     Whitworth 


Decree  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  regarding  Sequestration  of  the 
Property  of  Englishmen,  August  29,  1800^ 

Pursuant  to  the  orders  of  his  Excellency  Chevalier  Pepow,  Major 
General  commanding  at  Riga,  under  date  of  August  28,  the  magis- 
trates of  this  city  announce  that  His  Imperial  Majesty,  having  been 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  153. 


494  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND 

informed  of  the  acts  of  violence  which  the  English  have  committed 
against  Denmark,  and  having  learned  that  an  English  squadron  has 
passed  the  Sound,  an  event  which,  by  causing  this  passage  to  be  closed, 
has  seriously  affected  the  entire  commerce  of  the  Baltic,  has  ordered 
that,  as  security  against  the  damage  that  may  result  therefrom  to  Rus- 
sian commerce,  the  real  designs  of  the  English  being  as  yet  unknown, 
all  property  belonging  to  Englishmen  be  sequestered ;  that  the  most 
rigorous  measures  be  taken  to  prevent  this  property  from  being  restored 
to  them  under  any  pretext  and  without  the  permission  of  His  Imperial 
Majesty,  without,  however,  confiscating  it  or  molesting  the  English 
in  their  domestic  commerce. 

Published  at  the  city  hall  of  Riga,  August  29,  1800. 

Ad  mcmdatum. 

SCHWAZ 

Secretary  in  Chief 


On  the  Subject  of  the  Capture  of  Neutral  Ships  and  of  the  Project 
of  Confederacy  supposed  to  exist  in  the  North  against  Great 
Britain,  September,  1800^ 

It  must  have  occurred  to  the  observation  of  every  man,  and  not 
without  pain  to  every  well-thinking  person,  that  several  of  our  daily 
papers,  namely,  mostly  those  in  the  interests  of  opposition,  have  ex- 
erted themselves,  with  more  than  ordinary  malignit>',  to  represent  the 
subject  before  us  in  the  worst  colors ;  and  that  they  have  in  this  in- 
stance, as  in  every  other  in  which  they  could  flatter  the  enemies  of 
their  country,  and  misrepresent  the  acts  of  government,  been  faithful 
to  that  systematic  rule  of  conduct,  which  their  repeated  defeats,  and 

^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  169.  "This  article  was  published  in 
the  London  papers  so  early  as  the  12th  of  September,  1800.  It  is  attributed  to 
the  pen  of  a  noble  Lord,  who  has  been  for  many  years  honored  with  the  rep- 
resentation of  His  Majesty  at  the  Court  of  one  of  the  northern  Powers  engaged 
in  the  confederacy.  It  must  be  a  matter  of  interest  and  curiosity  to  know  what 
were  the  sentiments  at  that  time  of  such  an  able  statesman,  possessing  such 
an  opportunity  of  information  upon  the  subject;  and  therefore  the  editor  has 
not  hesitated  to  give  the  article,  though  not  avowedly  official,  a  place  in  this 
collection."     Ibid.     For  a  reply  to  this  article,  see  post,  p.  519. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  495 

the  disappointment  of  their  sinister  hopes,  by  the  vigor  of  adminis- 
tration, have  suggested  to  their  malevolence.  But  it  shall  be  the 
object  of  these  lines  to  undeceive  the  honest  and  sober  portion  of 
the  people,  who,  unaware  of  the  falsehoods  daily  propagated  in  those 
papers,  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  misled  by  the  contemptible 
comments  which  have  lately  swelled  their  columns,  in  relation  to  the 
present  subject,  while  I  endeavor  to  show  that  it  is  to  the  rancor  and 
jealousy  entertained  by  some  of  the  northern  Courts,  that  of  Denmark 
in  particular,  of  the  commercial  prosperity  of  Great  Britain,  and  not, 
as  the  hirelings  of  opposition  would  fain  have  us  believe,  to  the  arro- 
gant, unjustifiable  pretensions,  or  haughty  deportment,  of  our  own 
people  towards  the  rest  of  the  world,  that  we  are  to  look  for  the  source 
of  the  prevailing  misunderstandings. 

The  system  now  apparently  manifesting  itself  in  the  north  is  not 
new :  one  similar  in  its  tendency  disclosed  itself  towards  the  latter  end 
of  last  war;  and  our  differences  with  Holland,  which  country  ad- 
vanced the  same  unjustifiable  pretensions,  to  a  free  and  uninterrupted 
intercourse  with  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain,  which  it  would  appear 
Denmark  now  conceives  the  design  of  establishing,  were  brought  to  a 
crisis  by  the  discovery  of  proceedings  decidedly  hostile  on  the  part  of 
that  Republic,  as  may  eventually  prove  to  be  the  case  with  regard  to 
Denmark,  if  the  Government  of  that  country  avows  or  justifies  the  late 
hostile  aggression,  of  which  we  have  so  much  reason  to  complain. 
Indeed,  during  the  whole  of  the  present  war,  the  conduct  pursued  by 
the  subjects  of  that  nation  has  been  more  than  equivocal ;  the  most 
marked  partiality  for  our  enemies  has  distinguished  them  in  multi- 
tudes of  instances;  and  it  will  not  be  improper  for  every  Englishman 
to  attend  to  the  consequences  which  he  may  expect  hereafter,  if  this 
semi-warfare,  under  the  cloak  of  neutrality,  is  to  be  tolerated,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  murmurings  of  disaffection  at  home,  the  malicious 
insinuations  of  our  external  enemy,  or  the  thirst  of  pelf  of  pretended 
friends. 

It  may  first  be  asked,  what  is  the  nature  of  the  present  war?  Each 
nation  engaged  in  it  will  inform  you,  that  it  is  a  contest  undertaken 
in  defense  of  its  just  rights,  dearest  interests,  and  independence;  and 
individuals  must  form  their  own  judgment  of  its  expediency  and  jus- 
tice, from  such  facts  and  documents  as  have  come  to  their  knowledge 
respecting  its  origin  and  causes.  An  inquiry  into  the  merits  of  a  ques- 
tion  so  often  and   so  ably  discussed  in   Parliament,  and   latterly  so 


496  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

judiciously  treated  in  the  incomparable  work  of  Mr.  Herbert  Marsh, 
who  has  immortalized  his  name,  among  fair  and  candid  men,  by  this 
production,  would  be  foreign  to  the  present  purpose:  it  is  sufficient 
for  us  to  know  that  war  actually  exists,  that  that  war  is  waged,  on 
our  part  singly,  against  the  united  maritime  strength  of  the  first  naval 
Powers  of  Europe,  and  one  of  those  Powers,  in  particular,  the  relent- 
less rival  of  this  country,  and  the  most  desperate  and  inveterate  foe 
which,  perhaps,  a  nation  had  ever  to  contend  with ;  one  which  no  sac- 
rifice, short  of  the  most  abject  concession,  will  satisfy,  if  she  proves 
successful  in  the  present  conflict. 

Does  it  not  follow  then  of  course,  does  not  self-preservation  inform 
us,  that  our  whole  object,  all  our  most  strenuous  endeavors,  should  be 
to  weaken  and  deprive  that  cruel  enemy  of  the  power  of  molesting  us, 
and  to  employ  with  effect  the  means  of  defense  which  it  has  pleased 
God,  in  the  largeness  of  his  bounty  to  this  nation,  to  place  in  our 
hands? 

The  ultimate  object  of  a  just  and  necessary  war,  such  as  ours  is,  is 
security  at  home,  respect  abroad ;  in  a  word,  a  safe  and  honorable 
peace :  to  attain  it,  we  must  exert  our  valor,  skill,  and  vigilance,  in  that 
line  of  warfare  where  they  are  most  conspicuous,  and  to  which  it 
seems  nature  has  peculiarly  adapted  us,  in  conformity  to  the  happy 
allotment  made  to  us  by  Providence  of  an  insular  situation.  To  our 
exertions  by  sea,  to  our  naval  strength  alone,  therefore,  are  we  to  look 
for  protection,  and  the  preservation  of  our  liberties  and  political  exist- 
ence as  an  independent  nation.  To  our  fleets,  under  the  blessing  of 
Providence,  are  we  indebted  for  the  advantages  we  enjoy ;  and  it  surely 
is  no  less  a  duty  carefully  to  watch  that  our  enemies  receive  no  undue 
aid  and  assistance  from  nations  denominating  themselves  friendly, 
than  it  is  to  defend  ourselves  from  those  enemies ;  or  otherwise,  while 
with  our  right  arm  we  are  repelling  the  open  united  assaults  of  France, 
Spain,  and  Holland,  and  spending  blood  and  treasure  in  our  cause,  we 
shall  have  to  protect  ourselves  with  our  left  from  the  stiletto  attacks 
and  secret  blows  from  beneath  the  neutral  cloak  of  Denmark  and 
Sweden.  Indeed  there  would  be  a  glaring  absurdity,  and  an  unpar- 
donable supineness  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  intrusted  with  the 
management  of  our  dearest  concerns,  if  they  were  tamely  to  suffer 
such  proceedings ;  and  if  the  illicit  practices  of  neutrals  have  been 
sometimes  connived  at,  as  being  the  isolated  acts  of  certain  individuals, 
unauthorized  and  unsupported  by  their  superiors,  it  does  not  follow 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  497 

that  those  practices  are  uniformly  to  be  tolerated,  or  to  pass  unnoticed, 
especially  when  they  assume  the  aspect  of  a  hostile  disregard  of  com- 
mon usage  and  the  law  of  nations,  and  appear  to  be  countenanced  by 
those  very  authorities  whose  duty  it  is  to  check  and  suppress  them. 

It  may  be  necessary,  for  the  information  of  some  readers,  to  state 
what  the  practices  alluded  to  may  be,  and  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  do 
so,  not  only  from  personal  observation,  but  upon  high  and  respectable 
judicial  authority.  I  shall  take  Denmark  as  the  standard  of  the  most 
unwarrantable  proceedings  ever  ascribed  to  a  nation  in  amity  with 
His  Majesty,  and  endeavor  to  show  that  the  subjects  of  that  Crown 
have,  more  than  any  other  people  known,  indulged  in  unlawful  specu- 
lation and  the  eager  thirst  of  gold,  at  the  expense  of  other  States,  to 
the  great  annoyance  especially  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  unspeakable 
advantages  of  her  numerous  enemies. 

It  may  be  necessary  here  to  show  in  what  manner  the  Danes  have 
succeeded  in  covering  the  property  of  the  enemy  to  the  extent  they 
have  done,  as  assertions,  unsubstantiated  by  facts,  may  be  met  by  asser- 
tions equally  plausible,  or  equally  unsatisfactory  to  the  reader. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  enemies  of  England  in  general,  and 
especially  the  Dutch,  whose  ships  and  property  have  been  blocked  up 
in  the  harbors  of  Surinam,  and  elsewhere  in  the  West  Indies  and 
America,  by  the  British  cruisers,  have  called  out  to  other  maritime 
nations  to  come  and  assist  them  to  carry  home  their  colonial  produce ; 
nor  will  it  be  denied,  that,  as  almost  all  the  inland  trade  of  Holland 
is  carried  on  by  commission,  so  their  external  navigation  is  carried  on 
by  seamen  who  are  the  natives  of  the  northern  parts  of  Europe,  whilst 
their  own  people  are  employed  in  the  canals  and  trackschuyts.  The 
masters  of  most  Dutch  ships  are  Danes,  and  nothing  certainly  could 
be  more  obvious  than  the  policy  of  covering  Dutch  property  by  frau- 
dulent intervention  and  false  transfers  to  Danish  subjects;  and,  from 
the  extent  and  continuance  of  these  practices,  it  would  indeed  almost 
appear,  that  the  payment  of  duties  into  the  Danish  treasury  was  as 
irresistible  for  the  Danish  Government,  as  it  was  found  impossible  for 
the  Danish  merchant  to  withstand  the  monopolizing  of  the  trade  and 
navigation  of  Holland.  Thus  things  have  gone  to  great  length ;  pre- 
tended sales,  pro  forma,  have  been  made  by  Dutch  proprietors  to 
Danes,  and  other  neutral  subjects,  in  the  ports  of  Surinam  and  the 
Dutch  colonies  abroad,  and  at  Amsterdam  and  other  ports  of  Europe. 

At  these  sales  the  proper  parties  were  not  always  present  themselves, 


498  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  equivalent  consideration  was  not  paid  down,  and  the  transaction 
was  neither  before  proper  magistrates  on  oath,  nor  had  the  true  forms 
of  notarial  jurisdiction.  Crews  were  actually  sent  from  Copenhagen, 
Altona,  and  elsewhere,  to  Surinam,  etc.  The  Dutch  Governor  himself 
is  absolutely  said  to  have  hoisted  the  Danish  flag;  and  entremetteurs, 
or  middlemen,  agents,  and  brokers,  charged,  in  their  correspondence 
and  papers,  so  much  for  commission  for  what  they  called  neiitralisa^ 
Hon.  Royal  sea  passes  were  obtained  at  Copenhagen  as  for  ships 
belonging  to  Denmark,  and  for  persons  as  Danish  inhabitants,  which 
ships  had  never  been  in  the  ports  of  Denmark,  and  which  persons  had 
passed  the  greatest  part  of  their  lives  in  foreign  countries,  under  for- 
eign protection.  The  very  bills  of  admeasurement  were  made  only 
with  the  curious  clause  of  ad  interim,  viz.,  to  be  valid  only  until  such 
time  as  they  should  come  to  Denmark.  It  must  be  further  observed, 
that  the  purchases  made  in  the  colonies  of  the  enemy,  particularly  by 
the  Danes,  were  attended  by  a  mode  of  proceeding  as  equivocal,  as  it 
tended  strongly  to  conceal  his  property.  Persons,  in  the  character  of 
Danes,  were  sent  from  Europe  to  buy  up  West  India  produce:  for 
these  cargoes  bills  were  drawn  for  the  payment,  upon  condition  of  the 
ship  and  cargo's  safe  arrival,  and  that  the  person  on  whom  the  bills 
were  drawn  should  have  the  commission :  thus,  in  case  the  ship  was 
captured,  and  never  arrived,  there  was  no  actual  payment  fairly  out 
and  out,  and  no  loss  to  the  Dane.  There  was  another  practice,  that 
of  drawing  and  redrawing;  as  when  the  Dane  has  been  drawn  upon, 
and  paid  the  pretended  price  for  the  goods,  he  draws  again  upon  the 
Dutch  merchant,  in  whom  all  property  begins  and  ends.  How  then 
were  such  difficulties  to  be  got  over  in  our  courts  ?  How  was  it  pos- 
sible to  discover  the  ultimate?  For  if  the  parties  had  no  conscience  in 
falsifying  oaths,  proofs,  and  papers,  little  could  be  done  towards  dis- 
covering the  truth,  and  checking  an  intercourse  so  opposite  to  every 
thing  that  is  to  be  hoped  for  by  this  country  in  a  naval  war.  Besides, 
even  on  the  supposition  of  neutrals  having  a  right  to  buy  and  sell  in 
the  enemies  colonies,  and  of  its  being  only  required  of  them  to  prove 
that  there  was  a  bona  fide  purchase  in  open  market,  out  and  out,  for 
a  fair  equivalent  actually  paid,  still  so  much  fraud,  of  the  kind  above 
related,  appeared  openly  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty,  that  the  decisions 
could  not  be  diflFerent  from  what  they  were;  for,  notwithstanding  the 
clamors  raised  by  the  Danes,  every  neutral  subject  must  be  conscious 
that,  as  such  a  trade  must  be  attended  with  peculiar  suspicions,  it  was 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  499 

incumbent  on  each  of  them  to  produce  more  exact  documents ;  and  as 
their  profits  were  immense  on  the  general  scale,  so  individuals  ought 
the  more  patiently  to  have  abided  the  consequences  of  seizure  and 
investigation.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  these  doubts  and 
suspicions  were  increased,  in  proportion  to  the  facility  with  which  it 
was  known  that  briefs  of  burghership,  constituting  the  holder  a  Danish 
citizen,  and  giving  him  all  the  privileges  and  advantages  of  a  Danish 
subject  in  matters  of  trade,  were  sold  in  every  town  in  Denmark  to  the 
first  comer,  v^^hether  a  Cherokee  Indian  or  a  Mandingo  Negro ;  and  that 
Englishmen  as  well  as  Dutchmen  were  frequently,  under  a  similar  meta- 
morphose, enabled  to  hold  a  direct  intercourse  with  all  the  enemies'  ports 
abroad,  to  display  the  Danish  flag,  and  exhibit  Danish  papers;  though, 
in  the  case  of  the  former,  this  intercourse  was  not  only  unlawful,  but 
even  criminal,  upon  the  ground  of  express  law  to  that  effect,  in  time 
of  war,  and  upon  the  principle  of  no  Englishman,  or  other  British  sub- 
ject, having  a  right,  at  any  time,  to  claim  the  protection  of  a  foreign 
Power  in  any  transaction,  whether  commercial  or  other,  that  is  injuri- 
ous to  the  interests  of  his  lawful  sovereign.  Consular  certificates, 
declarations,  and  interventions,  by  which  the  neutral  subject  sought  to 
protect  his  vessel  from  the  search  of  such  consular  agent's  own  coun- 
trymen  at  sea,  and  to  legalize  his  cargo  by  the  seeming  acknowledg- 
ment of  its  lawful  character  by  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain,  was 
another  instrument  of  deception  in  the  hands  of  the  neutralist,  and  a 
new  system  introduced  by  the  politics  of  France,  contrary  to  the  ancient 
established  laws  of  nations,  which  no  judge  in  admiralty  causes  could 
ever  submit  to.  But  in  adducing  the  multiplied  instances  of  the  prac- 
tices pursued  in  regard  to  the  West  India  settlements  of  our  enemies, 
it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  the  speculations  of  the  Danes  were  con- 
fined to  that  quarter  of  the  world  only ;  the  east  as  well  as  the  west, 
the  Mediterranean  as  well  as  the  ocean,  all  equally  afforded  the  fairest 
opportunities  for  similar  abuses ;  and  the  great  settlement  of  Batavia. 
in  particular,  has  been  preserved  to  Holland  by  the  fraudulent  inter- 
vention of  Danish  subjects  alone,  while  the  whole  trade  of  the  Mauri- 
tius passed  through  their  hands,  under  the  same  fictitious  form  with 
that  of  the  Dutch  and  French  West  India  Islands,  although  the  whole 
capital  of  Denmark  would  scarcely  have  sufficed  to  bring  one  of  those 
branches  of  commerce  fairly,  out  and  out,  into  their  own  hands.  In 
Europe,  the  ports  of  Carthagena,  Cadiz,  Ferrol,  the  ports  of  Toulon, 
L'Orient,  Brest,  and  Rcuchefort,  received  their  naval  stores  from  the 


500  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

hands  of  neutrals,  and  the  Danish  flag  is  everywhere  conspicuous, 
where  the  enemies  of  England  stand  in  need  of  supplies  of  this  or 
any  other  description,  whether  lawful  or  unlawful.  But  it  will  happen 
with  this  flag,  at  the  close  of  the  present  war,  in  increased  proportion 
as  it  did  with  the  same  flag  at  the  end  of  the  last,  when,  to  quote  a 
single  example  only,  out  of  eighty  vessels  which  sailed  the  seas  in  the 
name  of  one  great  mercantile  house  of  Copenhagen,  under  Danish 
colors,  there  was  not  one  but  what  assumed  its  native  Dutch  character 
at  the  pacification,  and  acknowledged  its  real  proprietor  by  returning 
to  the  ports  of  Holland.  The  metamorphose  of  the  French,  Dutch,  and 
Spaniards,  into  Danes,  will  be  still  more  striking  at  the  close  of  the 
present  war:  at  the  signing  of  a  peace,  the  scanty  flag  of  Denmark 
will  resume  its  proper  place,  and  convey  a  juster  idea  of  its  original 
insignificance  than  may  be  now  entertained  of  it  by  such  as  are  ignor- 
ant of  these  things.  But  enough  has  been  said  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  the  strictest  watchfulness  on  our  part;  and  where  is  the  man  who 
conscientiously  can  justify  such  proceedings?  Where  is  the  English- 
man, who  has  the  interest  of  his  country  at  heart,  that  would  submit 
his  fair  and  impartial  judgment  of  these  matters,  and  his  right  of 
self-preservation,  to  false  notions  of  justice,  to  those  who  would  so 
cruelly  impose  on  his  good  faith,  and  who  have  so  bare-facedly  tres- 
passed on  his  borders,  and  trampled  his  best  fences  under  foot,  while 
they  professed  their  friendship  for  him,  and  declared  themselves  neuter 
in  the  quarrel  between  him  and  his  enemies?  But,  above  all,  where  is 
the  Englishman  who,  though  with  native  humanity  and  characteristic 
benevolence  he  might  be  disposed  to  spare  the  individual  who  injured 
him,  would  tamely  submit  to  the  same  encroachments,  if  he  discovered 
a  really  hostile  design  in  a  nation  at  large,  and  the  intention,  openly 
manifested,  of  opposing,  by  acts  of  violence  and  force,  the  lawful 
exercise  of  his  just  prerogative?  The  late  circumstance  of  a  Danish 
shii)  of  war  resisting  by  arms  the  usual  visit  to  which  neutral  mer- 
chantmen are  liable  on  the  part  of  every  belligerent  Power,  is  one 
which  no  existing  treaty,  no  law  of  nations,  no  usage  ancient  or 
modern,  can  justify  or  countenance;  it  was  a  direct  infraction  of  the 
neutrality  of  Denmark,  by  one  of  her  own  commanders ;  a  most  un- 
warrantable opposition  to  the  lawful  exercise  of  the  duty  imposed  on 
the  British  officers,  and  a  wanton  violation  of  a  right  inherent  in  every 
belligerent  Power,  and  naturally  arising  from  a  state  of  war;  a  right 
which  our  great  active  rival  even  did  not  dispute,  in  a  case  which 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  501 

occurred  in  the  East  Indies  in  the  course  of  Lord  Cornwallis's  mem- 
orable war  with  the  late  Tippoo  Sultaun;  a  right,  in  short,  in  many 
instances  sanctioned  and  acknowledged  by  treaty,  with  provision  only 
against  arbitrary  and  vexatious  detention,  where  papers  and  other 
documents  appeared  unobjectionable.  But  in  regard  to  warlike  stores, 
more  specific  arrangements  still  have  been  reciprocally  agreed  on 
between  the  States ;  and,  in  many  cases,  which  a  reference  to  our 
public  treaties  would  discover  to  the  reader's  satisfaction,  each  indi- 
vidual article  constituting  such  stores  is  named  and  declared  contra- 
band by  mutual  consent,  and  proper  forms  of  sea  passes  for  their 
respective  subjects  formally  stipulated.  With  what  conscience,  then, 
can  it  be  pretended,  that  the  escort  of  a  ship  of  war,  of  a  nation  not 
a  party  in  the  contest,  should  screen  the  neutral  merchantman  from  the 
inspection  of  his  papers,  or  the  stricter  search  of  a  belligerent  Power, 
whose  only  hope  of  a  successful  issue  is  on  the  assurance  of  the 
enemy's  receiving  no  undue  succor  or  advantage  from  nations  pro- 
fessing neutrality  and  friendship?  If  protection  of  this  kind  is  lawful 
in  one  instance,  it  must  be  equally  so  in  a  thousand,  and  the  right  of 
visiting  must  cease.  The  admission  of  so  preposterous  a  pretension 
would  shortly  put  an  end  to  everything;  and  we  had  much  better 
accede  at  once  to  the  principle  which  French  policy  would  fain  pre- 
scribe, but  which  British  sagacity  contemptuously  rejects,  of  suffering 
neutral  bottoms  to  constitute  neutral  property,  and  thus  deliver  up  com- 
merce and  navy,  at  a  stroke,  to  the  mercy  of  our  foes. 

There  are  men,  who,  unacquainted  with  Denmark's  means  of  attack 
and  defense,  may  form  such  erroneous  conjectures  on  that  subject,  as 
the  malice  of  the  disaffected  would  suggest  to  them ;  and  there  are 
others,  who,  better  acquainted  with  the  relative  powers  of  that  country, 
may  stand  appalled  at  the  bugbear  of  the  northern  confederacy,  and 
their  frightened  fancy  exhibit  to  their  view  the  fleets  of  Denmark, 
Sweden,  and  Russia,  combining  their  operations  at  sea  with  those  of  a 
Prussian  army  by  land,  and  changing  the  face  of  the  globe.  But  let 
us  take  a  more  impartial  view  of  thins^s,  and  we  shall  soon  perceive 
that  such  fears  are  imaginary  only,  and  that  people  shrink  more  from 
the  sound,  than  they  would  do  from  the  reality  of  this  war,  if,  indeed, 
such  a  war  should  be  in  contemplation  with  those  States,  which  is 
extremely  problematical.  It  must,  in  truth,  be  acknowledged,  that 
there  is  something  very  extraordinary  in  the  conduct  of  the  Court  more 
immediately  in  question ;  and  the  circumstance  of  two  ships,  belonging 


502  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

to  that  State,  acting  in  a  manner  so  exactly  corresponding,  though  in 
different  seas,  would  seem  to  corroborate  the  idea  of  the  existence  of 
a  secret  understanding  between  her  and  other  maritime  Powers  of  the 
north,  as  it  is  hardly  to  be  supposed,  that,  without  some  such  concert, 
she  would  have  adopted  so  desperate  a  measure  as  to  hazard  singly  a 
contest  with  this  country ;  but  still  this  is  doubtful,  and  it  may  be  only 
an  experiment  made  on  the  temper  of  the  British  Cabinet,  which  the 
resolute  firmness  of  this  Cabinet  will  induce  that  Court  to  abandon 
with  as  much  haste,  perhaps,  as  it  undertook  it.  But  in  order  to  be 
prepared  for  every  contingency,  let  us  suppose  the  existence  of  this 
confederacy,  and  let  us  review  the  forces  of  our  new  antagonists  in 
hostile  array,  while  we  examine  the  consequences  to  them  and  to  our- 
selves, of  so  unjust  a  league,  so  incoherent,  so  preposterous,  so  un- 
natural a  state  of  things. 

We  see  Denmark  with  thirty-three  sail  of  the  line  in  the  harbor  of 
Copenhagen,  her  only  naval  arsenal,  with  two  or  three  others  on  the 
stocks,  and  from  twelve  to  fifteen  frigates  and  other  smaller  vessels ; 
two,  at  most,  of  these  ships,  carrying  upwards  of  seventy-four  guns — 
some  that  number,  but  the  greater  part  only  sixty-four.  Of  the  num- 
ber of  ships  of  the  line,  eight  at  least  are  wholly  unfit  for  service,  and 
if  five-and-twenty  could  be  equipped,  it  is  the  utmost ;  but  it  could 
never  happen  that  they  could  all  be  properly  manned  at  the  same  time ; 
and  if  it  were  possible,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  the  whole  fleet 
would  be  risked,  at  once,  to  the  hazard  of  an  action,  even  with  an 
enemy  of  inferior  force.  Ten  or  twelve  ships,  therefore,  is  the  utmost 
number  that  would  ever  quit  the  Baltic ;  the  rest  would  be  reserved  to 
replace,  occasionally,  such  of  them  as  wanted  refitting,  after  service 
or  accidents  at  sea,  and  as  guard-ships  for  the  protection  of  their 
coasts,  and  the  harbors  of  Norway  in  particular,  where  there  exists  a 
spirit  not  altogether  friendly  to  the  Government  of  Denmark,  and  a 
brave  people,  the  enthusiastic  admirers  of  the  naval  valor  and  prowess 
of  Britain,  as  well  as  of  her  invaluable  constitution.  The  Danish 
squadron,  once  at  sea,  would  naturally  seek  the  ports  of  Holland ;  it 
might  also  hope  to  evade  the  vigilance  of  our  fleet,  and  escape  into 
those  ports ;  but  another  Duncan  would  soon  appear  to  paralyze  its 
future  operations.  The  manning  of  this  squadron,  however,  must  first 
be  effected,  before  it  undertakes  any  sort  of  operations ;  and  unless  the 
Danish  Government  has  l>een  silently  pursuing  measures,  in  order  to 
secure  so  requisite  a  preliminary  to  war,  this  object  would  extremely 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  503 

perplex  that  Government  in  the  outset.  The  Danish,  as  weU  as 
Norwegian  sailors,  fishermen,  and  other  seafaring  people,  along  the 
coasts  of  those  kingdoms,  are  all  enrolled,  and  obliged,  by  law,  to 
serve  on  board  His  Danish  Majesty's  fleet,  whenever  a  proper  notice 
is  delivered  to  them  to  repair  to  their  allotted  stations;  and,  indeed, 
by  this  mode,  a  respectable  squadron,  fifteen  sail  of  the  line  perhaps, 
might  be  soon  manned,  provided  the  event  had  been  foreseen,  and 
those  men  could  be  found  unemployed  at  their  respective  homes ;  but 
this  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  be  the  case  at  present : — those  men's 
livelihoods  being  procured  by  their  industry  and  various  maritime 
vocations,  it  rarely  happens  that  a  third  of  their  number  is  to  be  met 
with  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion ;  besides,  it  is  well  known,  that,  as 
in  that  country,  of  late  years,  every  wise  and  prudent  consideration 
has  yielded  to  the  desire  of  accumulating  wealth — the  boon  held  out 
to  the  Danish  mariners  of  becoming  the  carriers  of  the  world,  aflforded 
too  promising  a  prospect  of  general  profit,  to  admit  of  those  permits 
being  withheld  from  them  by  the  Government,  which,  by  law,  it  is 
authorized  to  grant  to  such  as  are  desirous  of  serving  abroad,  or  of 
absenting  themselves  on  distant  voyages.  Thus,  on  an  emergency,  at 
this  season  of  the  year,  it  would  prove  extremely  difficult  to  man  five 
ships  of  the  line,  and  an  equal  number  of  frigates ;  and  if  the  summer 
months  are  lost,  the  campaign  becomes  hopeless  for  a  nation,  with 
which  the  elements,  and  the  ice  in  particular,  are  at  variance  for  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  year. 

From  this  view  of  the  naval  power  of  Denmark,  it  will  not  be  con- 
tended, that  much  is  to  be  apprehended  by  this  country  from  that 
quarter;  nor  will  it  be  thought,  upon  an  inquiry  into  that  of  Sweden, 
that  the  accession  of  that  country  should  much  alarm  us.  The  dimin- 
ished fleet  of  Sweden,  reduced,  since  the  last  war  with  Russia,  to 
twenty  sail  of  the  line,  would  unwillingly  risk  its  reputation  beyond 
the  Sound;  and  though  a  division  of  four  or  five  ships  might  join  the 
Danes  in  the  North  Sea,  the  remainder  would  be  satisfied  with  a 
summer  cruise  in  the  Baltic  or  Cattegat,  and  be  wanted  to  protect 
Gothenburg,  as  well  as  Copenhagen,  and  the  other  trading  towns. 
The  manning  of  the  Swedish  fleet  would  be  attended  with  still  greater 
difficulties  than  even  that  of  Denmark;  and  the  expenses  of  a  war, 
and  the  present  shattered  state  of  the  finances  of  that  country,  would 
be  more  severely  felt,  and  more  reluctantly  submitted  to,  than  in  the 
former,  where  public  credit  is  on  a  better  footing,  and  the  treasury 


504  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

more  judiciously  administered;  yet  even  there  the  most  serious  conse- 
quences might  be  apprehended  from  any  great  additional  taxes  or 
burdens  on  a  people  naturally  selfish,  and  not  enjoying  the  inestimable 
privilege  of  assessing  themselves. 

With  respect  to  Russia,  her  navy  is  more  respectable  than  the  two 
former  put  together;  sixty  sail  of  the  line,  with  a  proportionable 
number  of  smaller  ships,  are  said  to  compose  her  marine :  but  in  the 
present  state  of  uncertainty,  which  prevails  in  regard  to  the  real  de- 
signs of  that  Court,  it  would  be  misplaced  to  name  His  Imperial  Maj- 
esty, the  Emperor  Paul,  otherwise  than  with  profound  deference,  and 
just  admiration  of  the  noble  deeds  achieved  by  his  arms,  during  the 
time  he  favored  the  common  cause ;  and  little  more  shall,  accordingly, 
be  said  here,  on  the  part  that  monarch  may  be  supposed  to  take,  in  the 
so  much  rumored  concert  of  the  north,  than  merely,  that  a  naval  war 
might  possibly  not  be  attended  with  the  same  brilliant  successes  which 
signalized  His  Imperial  Majesty's  arms  by  land,  as  his  ships  are 
neither  calculated  for  very  severe  service  in  distant  seas,  nor  his 
mariners  very  numerous,  or  likely  to  be  much  disposed  to  enter  with 
ardor  into  a  war  with  that  ally,  of  whose  irresistible  valor  and  dex- 
terity on  his  native  element,  they  have  had  so  many  opportunities  of 
receiving  the  most  evincing  proofs ;  such  proofs,  as  might  make  even 
the  brave  and  hardy  Russian  pause,  ere  he  entered  the  lists  of  his 
opponents. 

Of  Prussia,  as  merely  a  military  Power,  little  need  be  said,  although 
that  country,  notwithstanding,  possesses  the  means  of  materially  injur- 
ing our  trade,  by  the  power  and  influence  she  enjoys  over  Hamburg, 
and  other  ports  in  Germany,  from  which  she  might  entirely  exclude  us, 
if  she  could  find  any  compensation  in  that  measure,  for  the  more  essen- 
tial injury  the  commerce  of  Germany  in  general,  and  of  her  own  fine 
province  in  Silesia,  so  noted  for  its  linen  manufactories,  in  particular, 
would  experience  from  being  cut  olT  from  all  exportation  by  sea. 

This  hasty  sketch  of  the  power  and  maritime  strength  of  the  pro- 
jected alliance  against  this  country  (if,  indeed,  it  be  true  that  the 
dictates  of  malevolence,  and  the  basest  passions,  should  have  overcome 
the  suggestions  of  sound  policy,  which  must  ever  militate  against  the 
formation  of  such  an  alliance),  will  suffice  to  convince  us,  that  the 
whole  northern  marine,  united  with  that  of  the  rest  of  Europe,  is 
insufficient  to  cope,  successfully,  with  the  triumphant  fleets  of  Great 
Britain  ;  and  it  may  now  be  well  to  state  what  the  consequences  of  such 
combination  might  be,  as  well  to  our  new  enemies  as  ourselves. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  505 

The  trade  of  the  Baltic,  and  even  to  Germany,  would  be,  at  once, 
cut  off  from  this  country,  and  the  momentary  inconvenience  would  be 
severely  felt,  though  it  could  not  be  productive  of  any  very  serious 
mischiefs,  as  such  a  state  of  things  could  not  be  durable.  We  should 
receive  no  naval  supplies  from  the  Baltic;  and  all  stores  of  that  kind 
would  rise  to  an  enormous  price  in  every  part  of  His  Majesty's  domin- 
ions. Government  having  a  title  to  preemption,  would  of  course  pro- 
vide against  the  wants  of  the  navy;  but  commercial  navigation  would 
experience  considerable  distress.  On  the  other  hand,  the  enormous 
sums  of  money  which  are  annually  remitted  to  the  States  of  the 
Baltic,  for  those  articles,  would  remain  at  home,  or  be  fully  employed 
in  setting  hands  to  work  in  every  other  corner  of  the  globe,  from 
whence  the  same  commodities  could  possibly  be  procured.  We  should, 
indeed,  have  to  send  further  for  them,  but  we  should  in  the  end  obtain 
them ;  and  the  Baltic  States,  perceiving  the  fatal  consequences  to  them- 
selves of  such  a  diversion  of  their  branches  of  trade,  would  not  be 
tempted  to  pursue  the  same  blind  and  rugged  path  of  policy  to  its 
conclusion — their  own  eventual  ruin. 

If  those  supplies  were  cut  off  from  us,  we  should  take  care  that  they 
were  equally  so  from  the  rest  of  Europe ;  and  the  general  stagnation 
which  would  follow,  would  become  insupportable  to  the  northern 
Powers,  as  the  article  of  naval  stores  is  the  only  valuable  return  they 
have  to  make  for  their  own  supply  of  many  of  the  necessaries  and  all 
the  luxuries  of  life  from  other  countries.  It  is,  besides,  particularly 
with  this  country,  that  theirs  is  a  gaining  trade ;  with  most  other 
nations  it  is  a  losing  one.  They  take  little  from  us,  in  comparison 
with  what  we  receive  from  them ;  and  the  large  returns  we  are  obliged 
to  make  them  in  specie  are  the  life  and  soul  of  all  their  other  com- 
merce. Besides,  v/hat  is  it  that  British  industry  might  not  accomplish  ? 
Should  we  tamely  sit  down  under  our  privations,  and  thus  acknowl- 
edge our  dependence  on  those  nations  for  the  essential  requisites 
towards  maintaining  that  marine  which  is  the  pride  and  glory,  as  well 
as  the  support  of  Great  Britain ;  the  envy  and  admiration,  as  v/ell  as 
the  dread  of  every  hostile  Power?  Certainly  not.  Why  should  not 
the  noble  fir-woods  of  Scotland,  though  inland  and  of  difficult  access, 
be  rendered  serviceable  by  British  perseverance,  and  yield  masts  to 
ships  of  English  oak,  as  well  as  turpentine?  And  how  would  Norway 
brook  the  loss  of  those  chief  sources  of  her  commerce?  What  would 
be  said  in  Sweden,  if  British  iron  was  found  sufficient,  and  if,  with 


506  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

patriotic  spirit,  all  ornamental  work  in  this  article  were  to  cease  in 
England,  in  order  to  supply  our  dock-yards  and  naval  arsenals  with 
the  requisite  quantity?  What  would  be  said  there,  if  tar,  pitch,  etc., 
were  to  be  imported  in  greater  quantities  from  America?  And  would 
not  the  dealers  in  hemp,  flax,  and  coarse  linens,  in  the  Prussian  and 
Russian  provinces,  look  confounded,  on  perceiving  that  the  exigency 
of  the  case  had  driven  the  bold  and  enterprising  genius  of  British 
traders  to  the  search  of  the  same  commodities,  not  only  from  the  well- 
known  sources  of  industry,  in  this  species  of  merchandise,  in  Scot- 
land and  Ireland,  but  from  Barbary,  America,  and  Levant,  and  else- 
where? Can  the  occasional  supplies  of  wheat,  and  other  grain,  we 
receive  from  Denmark,  tempt  us  to  forego  the  precious  right  she  has 
rashly  ventured  to  dispute  with  us ;  and  would  not  legislative  provi- 
sion for  the  extension  and  improvement  of  agriculture  at  home  soon 
render  us  independent  of  her  for  this  necessary  of  life?  As  for  the 
trifling  articles,  which  her  jealousy  of  our  superior  workmanship  and 
excellent  materials  in  manufacture  allows  her  to  take  of  us,  and  of 
which  more  is  smuggled  than  lawfully  imported  by  her  own  people, 
they  are  too  trifling  to  deserve  mentioning  among  our  losses  in  trade 
by  war. 

With  regard  to  Hamburg,  indeed,  and  the  use  of  the  rivers  Elbe 
and  Weser,  the  kings  of  Prussia  and  Denmark  might,  as  was  before 
hinted,  materially  injure  us,  by  depriving  us  of  these  only  remaining 
channels  of  commercial  intercourse  with  Germany  and  the  northern 
continent  of  Europe :  but  all  communication  with  the  ocean  would  like- 
wise be  shut  to  them ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  or  other  pacific  States,  would  silently  acquiesce  in  so  violent 
a  measure,  and  the  consequent  suspension  of  all  exportation  of  their 
superfluities  by  sea. 

The  first  immediate  consequence  of  our  naval  operations  would  be, 
the  total  suspension  of  the  Sound  duties,  into  the  Danish  treasury; 
and  it  need  only  be  said  that  £160,000  sterling  are  annually  received 
under  that  head,  to  show  that  it  is  a  most  important  item  of  revenue 
to  the  State,  and  one  which  Denmark  would  as  reluctantly  part  with, 
as  it  could  little  spare,  from  the  civil  list,  or  immediate  expenditure  of 
the  royal  household,  to  which  it  is  principally  appropriated.  Scarcely 
a  ship  would  venture  through  those  straits;  and  the  British  cruisers 
may,  in  case  of  war  with  Denmark,  more  effectually  deprive  the  Dutch 
and  French  of  their  supplies  from  the  Baltic  than  they  do  even  at  this 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  507 

moment.  We  should  deprive  the  Dutch  of  the  inestimable  advantage 
they  derive  from  the  use  of  the  canal  of  Kiel,  in  Holstein,  through 
which  their  small  craft  and  coasting  vessels,  passing  from  the  Baltic 
into  the  river  Eyder,  and  so  on  into  the  German  Ocean,  now  supply 
their  wants,  as  well  as  those  of  France,  without  danger  of  interruption 
from  our  ships  of  war,  which,  drawing  more  water,  are  unable  to  pur- 
sue them  through  the  shoals  and  narrows  to  which  those  people  imme- 
diately betake  themselves ;  but  once  at  liberty  to  act  hostilely  against 
Denmark,  nothing  could  hinder  Great  Britain  from  possessing  herself 
of  the  island  of  Heligoland  at  the  entrance  of  the  Elbe,  and  from 
thence  annoying  with  light  vessels  the  Dutch  coasting  trade,  as  it 
issued  from  the  Eyder,  at  the  same  time  that  they  blocked  up  the 
narrow  passes  at  the  mouths  of  the  Elbe  and  Weser,  leading  to  North 
Holland.  Copenhagen  and  Altona,  from  their  position  and  military 
strength  ;  the  seaports  of  Holstein  and  of  Norway,  from  their  little 
importance  to  us,  might  remain  unmolested ;  but  Tranquebar,  Freder- 
icksnagore,  in  the  East,  Saint  Croix  and  Saint  Thomas,  in  the  West 
Indies,  would  fall  an  easy  prey,  and  with  them  all  the  hopes  of  Den- 
mark of  commercial  grandeur  and  prosperity,  to  the  utter  confusion 
and  trepidation  of  the  whole  nation,  which  attaches  the  utmost  conse- 
quence to  the  possession  of  those  settlements. 


Letter  of  the  Spanish  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Swedish  Minister 
regarding  British  Violations  of  the  Swedish  Flag,  September 
17,  1800^ 

Sir  :  The  King  my  master  has  learned  with  the  greatest  indignation, 
from  a  report  which  the  Consul  of  His  Swedish  Majesty  at  Barcelona 
has  sent  to  the  Captain  General  of  Catalonia,  containing  the  declara- 
tion of  Captain  Rudhardt,  of  the  Swedish  galiot  Hoffnimg,  that  on  the 
afternoon  of  September  4,  last,  two  English  vessels  and  a  frigate 
forced  the  said  captain,  after  having  examined  his  papers  and  found 
them  to  be  all  right,  to  take  on  board  English  officers  and  a  consider- 
able number  of  sailors  and  to  permit  his  vessel  at  nightfall  to  be  towed 


iTranslation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  157.     A  copy  of 
this  letter  was  handed  to  each  member  of  the  diplomatic  corps  at  Madrid. 


508  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

by  several  English  boats  to  the  roadstead  of  Barcelona  and  under  the 
guns  of  its  batteries. 

That  the  English,  having  reduced  the  said  captain  and  his  crew  to 
silence,  by  pointing  a  pistol  at  his  breast,  took  possession  of  the  helm, 
and  at  nine  o'clock  that  night,  by  means  of  the  said  vessel  and  the 
boats  surrounding  it,  made  an  attack  on  two  frigates  under  the  Span- 
ish flag,  which  were  at  anchor.  The  latter,  having  no  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  this  friendly  and  neutral  vessel  concealed  enemies  on  board 
and  thus  served  for  an  attack  of  the  most  treacherous  nature,  were 
in  a  manner  surprised  and  forced  to  surrender. 

For  further  details  and  the  acts  of  violence  committed  by  the  Eng- 
lish on  the  Swedish  vessel,  we  would  refer  you  to  the  captain's  declara- 
tion, which  is  transmitted  herewith. 

The  King  my  master  can  not  but  consider  this  incident  as  affecting 
the  rights  and  injuring  the  interests  of  all  the  Powers  of  Europe, 
including  those  of  England,  and  above  all  as  a  very  serious  insult  to 
the  flag  of  His  Swedish  Majesty. 

Indeed,  it  is  evident  that,  in  admitting  neutral  vessels  to  their  road- 
steads and  ports,  the  belligerent  Powers  desire  to  mitigate  the  scourge 
of  war  and  to  facilitate  the  commercial  relations  between  peoples, 
which  their  mutual  needs  demand. 

Therefore,  whatever  tends  to  render  such  navigation  suspect  and 
dangerous  prejudices  the  rights  and  interests  of  all  nations  alike. 

In  the  present  case,  the  rights  and  honor  of  the  Swedish  flag  have 
been  violated  in  so  outrageous  a  manner  that  few  such  examples  can 
be  found  in  the  maritime  history  of  Europe. 

If  the  attack  were  left  unpunished,  it  would  tend  to  embroil  two 
friendly  nations,  to  paralyze  their  commercial  relations,  and  to  cause 
the  nation  that  tolerated  the  insult  to  be  considered  as  a  secret  auxiliary 
of  the  enemy  Power,  thus  forcing  Spain  to  adopt  such  measures  as  the 
interest  of  its  vessels  and  the  safety  of  its  ports  might  require. 

However,  the  King  my  master  can  not  but  feel  that  the  Swedish 
captain  was  not  guilty  of  the  slightest  connivance  with  the  English, 
and  that  all  that  he  did  was  to  yield  to  their  acts  of  violence  and  over- 
powering numbers. 

Under  this  supposition,  the  King  has  commanded  me  to  bring  to  the 
knowledge  of  His  Swedish  Majesty  this  grave  insult  to  his  flag ;  and 
having  no  doubt  as  to  the  latter's  resentment  at  so  base  and  lawless  a 
proceeding  on  the  part  of  certain  officers  of  the  British  navy,  he  ex- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  509 

pects  the  Court  of  Stockholm  to  request  the  English  Ministry  most 
urgently  to  see  to  it  that  the  officers  guilty  of  the  acts  in  question  are 
punished  with  the  utmost  severity,  and  that  the  two  Spanish  frigates 
which  were  surprised  and  removed  from  the  roadstead  of  Barcelona 
by  a  ruse  contrary'  to  the  law  of  nations  and  to  the  rules  of  war,  are 
immediately  restored,  together  with  their  cargoes,  as  having  been 
illegally  taken  by  means  of  a  neutral  vessel,  which  served  as  an  instru- 
ment for  the  assailants. 

His  Catholic  Majesty  is  the  more  confident  in  his  belief  that  the 
success  of  this  demand  is  assured,  since  the  English  Government  itself 
can  not  be  blind  to  the  fact  that  its  enemies,  by  following  such  an 
example,  might  likewise  make  use  of  neutral  ships  to  infest  its  road- 
steads and  to  perpetrate  in  its  ports  all  the  damage  possible. 

But  if,  contrary  to  his  expectation,  the  steps  taken  by  His  Swedish 
Majesty  at  the  Court  of  London  to  obtain  reparation  for  the  insult  to 
its  flag,  as  well  as  the  restitution  of  the  two  Spanish  frigates,  should 
not  meet  with  the  success  desired  before  the  end  of  the  year.  His  Maj- 
esty would  consider  himself  obliged,  although  with  the  greatest  regret, 
to  adopt  measures  with  respect  to  the  Swedish  flag  which  would  pro- 
tect its  roadsteads  and  ports  from  so  dangerous  and  revolting  an  out- 
rage as  that  just  committed  by  the  English. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc. 

Chevalier  d'Urquijo 

St.  Ildephonso,  September  ly,  1800. 


Note  of  the  Sv^edish  Chancellor  to  the  Spanish  Secretary  of  State, 
October  22,  1800,  in  reply  to  His  Letter  regarding  British  Vio- 
lations of  the  Swedish  Flag^ 

His  Swedish  Majesty  has  learned  with  the  greatest  displeasure  of 
the  act  of  violence  which  certain  officers  of  the  English  navy  com- 


iTranslation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  159. 


510  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

mitted  on  a  merchant  ship  of  Swedish  Ponierania,  for  the  purpose  of 
using  it  in  a  hostile  undertaking  against  two  frigates  in  tlie  roadstead 
of  Barcelona.  Being  in  complete  accord  with  His  Catholic  Majesty  in 
his  views  upon  this  new  abuse  of  force  and  the  common  danger  which 
such  examples  may  lead  to,  with  respect  not  only  to  neutrals  but  to 
the  belligerents  tliemselves,  His  Majesty,  both  because  of  his  friendly 
relations  with  the  Court  of  Spain  and  the  neutrality  of  his  flag,  will 
see  that  the  grievance  is  brought  before  the  Court  of  London. 

In  these  demands,  which  involve  principally  the  rights  of  the  flag 
and  subjects  of  Sweden,  His  Catholic  Majesty  will  no  doubt  consider 
it  just  for  the  King  to  regard  himself  as  the  principal  party.  In  pur- 
suing his  own  interests,  as  His  Majesty  understands  them,  he  will 
certainly  not  overlook  the  interests  of  Spain.  Justice  requires  the  res- 
titution of  what  has  been  wrongfully  taken:  His  Majesty  shall  insist 
upon  that,  though  he  can  not  guarantee  the  success  of  his  efforts.  He 
will,  in  due  time,  communicate  confidentially  to  the  Court  of  Spain 
the  stand  that  the  English  Ciovernment  may  take  in  the  matter;  but  a 
just  confidence  on  the  part  of  His  Catholic  Majesty  will  undoubtedly 
leave  to  the  judgment  of  His  Swedish  Majesty  the  fomi  and  method 
to  be  followed  in  this  business,  without  requiring  that  it  be  accom- 
plished at  any  fixed  time  or  that  a  report  thereof  be  rendered.  Spain, 
which,  like  the  rest  of  Europe,  is  aware  of  the  lengthy  negotiations 
which  Sweden  has  been  carrying  on  at  London  with  regard  to  tlie 
restitution  of  its  vessels,  can  liave  no  reason  to  expect  speedier  justice 
in  a  cause  where  the  restitution  is  to  be  made  to  an  enemy. 

In  general  His  Swedish  Majesty  does  not  admit  any  responsibihty 
on  his  part  for  an  act,  the  cause  of  which  does  not  concern  him.  After 
the  reports  on  the  affair  which  the  Court  of  Spain  has  had  made  and 
m  view  of  the  circumstances  which  that  Court  itself  admits  as  having 
been  determined,  that  it  should  attempt  to  implicate  the  Government 
of  Sweden  and  this  entire  nation  was  certainly  not  to  be  expected. 

It  would  be  unfortunate  if  the  wrongdoing  of  a  third  party  should 
cause  a  rupture  of  the  good  relations  which  a  number  of  direct  dis- 
cussions during  the  present  war  have  been  unable  to  alter.  There  have 
been  frequent  unfortunate  occurrences,  especially,  it  would  appear, 
in  Spanish  ports:  a  Swedish  ship  taken  in  the  very  port  itself — an  in- 
tervening one — by  the  English ;  another  vessel  pillaged  and  completely 
destroyed  by  the  French  at  Alicante;  several  others  seized  by  French 
privateers  stationed  at  the  entrance  to  the  ix)rt  of  Malaga,  have  given 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  511 

His  Swedish  Majesty  many  occasions  to  suggest  and  demand  in  a 
friendly  way,  with  a  view  to  the  security  of  his  commerce,  that  the 
Court  of  Spain  see  that  its  territory  is  respected.  His  Majesty  would 
have  congratulated  himself  on  the  outcome  of  his  representations,  if  he 
had  observed  in  his  favor  any  indication  of  the  energy  which  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Spain  has  recently  displayed  against  him  in  a  matter,  in 
which  he  himself  has  nothing  but  grievances.  Nevertheless  the  ap- 
parent uselessness  of  his  demands  has  not  caused  His  Majesty  to  de- 
part from  the  tone  of  moderation  and  equity,  which  becomes  the  inter- 
course of  two  friendly  Courts  and  to  which  His  Majesty  still  hopes 
to  see  the  Court  of  Spain  return,  after  the  various  unfortunate  occur- 
rences in  its  ports. 

The  undersigned,  Chancellor  of  the  Court,  who  has  the  honor  to 
transmit  these  views  to  Chevalier  Huerta,  Envoy  Extraordinary  of  His 
Catholic  Majesty,  in  reply  to  his  communication  of  September  17, 
takes  advantage  of  this  occasion,  etc. 

F.  VON  Ehrenheim 

Drottningholm,  October  22,  1800. 


Letter  of  the  Chancellor  of  Sweden  to  the  Minister  of  Prussia  con- 
cerning British  Violations  of  the  Swedish  Flag,  November, 
1800^ 

Having  informed  the  King  of  the  interest  taken  by  His  Prussian 
Majesty  in  the  demand  of  the  Court  of  Spain  concerning  the  abuse  of 
the  Swedish  flag  by  the  English,  the  undersigned,  Chancellor  of  the 
Court,  has  been  charged  to  express  to  Mr.  de  Tarrach  the  gratitude 
of  His  Majesty  for  the  constant  solicitude  of  the  Court  of  Berlin  with 
respect  to  the  interests  of  neutral  flags  and  His  Majesty's  entire  con- 
fidence in  that  Court's  point  of  view.  The  King  was  very  much  sur- 
prised at  the  way  in  which  the  Court  of  Spain  publicly  called  Sweden 
to  account  on  this  occasion  and  at  the  threats  which  accompanied  its 
comimunication.  After  all  the  vexations  to  which  neutral  flags  have 
been   exposed    during   the   present   war,   this   is  the   most   oppressive 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  162. 


512  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

measure  which  they  have  had  to  endure.  In  this  way,  placed  con- 
stantly between  offense  and  reparation,  they  must  soon  allow  them- 
selves to  be  drawn  into  the  war  or  disappear  from  all  the  seas  where 
war  is  being  waged. 

These  truths  being  of  such  moment  both  for  Sweden  and  for  the 
other  neutral  Powers,  His  Swedish  Majesty  could  not  assume,  in 
general,  any  responsibility  for  the  abusive  use  by  belligerent  Powers  of 
the  Swedish  vessels  of  which  they  may  take  possession.  This  principle 
seems  to  His  Majest}'  to  be  so  well  founded  that  he  flatters  himself 
with  the  belief  that  the  Court  of  Berlin  will  give  him  all  the  support 
which  justice  and  common  interests  would  seem  to  require.  It  has 
been  generally  recognized  up  to  the  present  time,  ajmidst  the  many  acts 
of  violence  which  iiave  been  committed  on  both  sides ;  otherwise  the 
war  would  have  been  general.  If  the  Ottoman  Porte,  Russia,  and 
England  had  placed  such  responsibility  upon  all  the  flags  that  they 
found  at  Alexandria;  if  they  had  demanded  Egypt  back  again  from 
the  respective  Governments,  because  merchant  ships  had  been  com- 
pelled to  transport  French  troops  to  take  it  by  surprise;  if  they  had 
put  forward  demands  and  conditions  in  this  peremptory  form,  all 
commerce  and  all  neutrality  would  have  been  destroyed.  Therefore 
ilis  Majesty  considered  that  the  act  of  violence  against  the  Swedish 
flag  at  Barcelona  could  not  be  treated  otherwise  than  the  acts  of  which 
he  has  had  occasion  to  complain  previously;  and  he  has  reserved  the 
right  to  take  up  the  wrongs  done  his  subjects  or  his  flag  at  such  time 
and  in  such  a  way  as  his  peculiar  position  may  permit. 

His  Majesty  must  not,  however,  conceal  the  fact  that  in  the  present 
case  the  injury  that  has  been  done  to  a  friendly  Power  causes  him  the 
more  regret  because  he  considers  the  English  capture  as  absolutely 
illegal  and  greatly  desires  to  succeed,  through  his  representations,  in 
obtaining  restitution.  His  Majesty  will  certainly  leave  no  stone  un- 
turned in  his  endeavor  to  bring  about  an  arrangement,  on  which  rests, 
quite  unexpectedly,  the  continuance  of  friendly  relations  between 
Sweden  and  Spain ;  but  he  can  not  do  at  present  for  the  two  frigates 
what  he  has  not  hitherto  done  for  his  own  convoys,  nor  hold  up 
brighter  hopes  to  Spain  than  to  himself. 

The  undersigned  takes  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to,  etc. 

VoN  Ehrenheim 


OFFICIAL  DOCUAIENTS  513 

Extract  from  the  Gazette  of  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg  regarding 
an  Embargo  on  British  Vessels  in  Ports  of  the  Island  of  Malta, 
November  7,  1800^ 

We  have  been  informed  that  the  Island  of  Malta,  which  up  to  the 
present  time  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  French,  has  surrendered  to 
English  troops.  It  is  not  yet  known,  however,  whether  the  regulation 
on  this  subject,  dated  December  30,  1798,  has  been  complied  with; 
namely,  that  upon  the  capture  of  this  island  it  should  be  restored  to 
the  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  of  which  the  Emperor  of  all  the 
Russias  is  Grand  Master.  Consequently,  it  has  pleased  His  Imperial 
Majesty,  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  his  rights,  to  order  that  in  all 
the  ports  of  his  empire  an  embargo  shall  be  placed  on  the  English 
vessels  therein,  until  this  convention  shall  have  been  fulfilled. 


First  Note  of  Lord  Carysfort,  British  Minister  at  Berlin,  to  Count 
Haugwitz,  Prussian  Minister  of  State,  regarding  the  Occupa- 
tion of  Cuxhaven  by  Prussian  Troops- 

Berlin,  November  i6,  i8oo. 

The  instant  Lord  Carysfort,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  learned  that  His  Prussian 
Majesty  was  preparing  to  order  a  detachment  of  his  troops  to  enter 
Cuxhaven,  and  that  the  reason  which  the  public  thought  proper  to  as- 
sign for  that  measure,  was  the  refusal  given  by  the  Government  of 
Hamburg,  to  cause  a  vessel  to  be  released,  which,  taken  by  one  of  the 
ships  of  war  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  had  been  compelled,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  dangers  of  the  sea,  to  enter  that  port,  he  thought  it  his 
duty  to  demand  an  audience  of  his  Excellency  Count  Haugwitz,  Min- 
ister of  State  and  of  the  Cabinet,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  in- 
formation with  respect  to  that  affair. 

He  received  from  his  Excellency  the  assurance  that  the  intentions 
of  His  Prussian  Majesty  were  in  no  view  hostile  or  contrary  to  the 
interests  of  Great  Britain ;  but  that  the  occupation  of  Cuxhaven  had 
for  its  principal  object  the  maintenance  of  the  authority  of  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty,  in  his  character  of  chief  and  protector  of  the  neutrality 


iTranslation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  155. 
^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol  11,  p.  198. 


514  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  the  north  of  Germany,  and  that  it  was  conducted  with  the  consent 
of  the  city  of  Hamburg  itself. 

Lord  Carysfort  not  being  exactly  acquainted  with  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  vessel  in  question  found  itself,  deferred  to  another 
occasion,  tlie  observations  which  he  might  have  wished  to  submit  to  his 
Excellency.  He  has  novv"  grounds  to  believe,  that,  laden  with  contra- 
band goods,  it  was  captured  by  one  of  His  Britannic  Majesty's  ships 
as  it  was  entering  into  the  Texel ;  that  is  to  say,  into  a  port  belonging 
to  the  enemies  of  His  Majesty;  and  that  it  was  restored  as  soon  as  the 
officer  who  had  the  charge  of  it  could  be  informed  of  the  orders  of  his 
superiors. 

With  respect  to  the  occupation  of  the  town  of  Cuxhaven  by  the 
Prussian  troops,  which  must  have  been  founded  on  particular  con- 
ventions between  His  Prussian  Majesty  and  the  Senate  of  Hamburg, 
he  does  not  think  himself  called  upon  to  take  part  in  that  discussion ; 
but  he  feels  himself  authorized  to  claim,  in  favor  of  tlie  subjects  and 
vessels  of  the  King  his  master,  all  the  rights  to  which  they  have  a  just 
pretension  in  a  neutral  port  belonging  to  a  republic,  whose  connections 
with  the  States  of  His  Majesty  are  very  ancient,  and  generally  known; 
no  convention  made  between  the  city  of  Hamburg  and  His  Prussian 
Majesty  being  capable  of  invalidating  or  altering  his  rights. 

In  consequence  of  these  considerations  he  dares  hope  that  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty  may  still  suspend  the  occupation  of  Cuxhaven,  until  the 
two  Courts  shall  have  tlie  means  of  entering  into  mutual  explanations, 
more  particularly  since  such  occupation,  in  the  actual  circumstances, 
might  give  room  to  ill-disposed  minds  to  attribute  to  His  Prussian 
Majesty  views  not  less  opposite  to  the  sentiments  of  justice  and  mod- 
eration which  govern  ail  liis  measures,  than  to  the  friendship  and  the 
good  harmony  which  subsist  between  him  and  His  Britannic  Majesty. 

At  all  events,  it  will  not  escajje  the  wisdom  and  humanity  of  His 
Majesty,  tliat  the  entrance  of  a  numerous  corps  of  troops  into  a  vil- 
lage both  poor  and  with  a  small  extent  of  territor)%  would  probably 
augment  the  miserj'  of  the  inhabitants ;  and  that  the  city  of  Hamburg 
having  always  possessed  that  place,  so  indispensably  necessary  to  the 
preservation  of  the  navigation  of  the  Elbe,  all  which  may  trouble  that 
IX)Ssession,  derange  ancient  customs,  and  influence  the  pilots  there  at 
present  to  seek  a  refuge  elsewhere,  would  strike  a  sensible  blow  at 
the  commerce  of  all  the  countries  of  the  north  of  Germany,  and  even 
at  that  of  the  States  of  His  Prussian  Majesty. 

Carysfort 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  515 

Second  Note  of  Lord  Carysfort  to  Count  Haugwitz  regarding  the 
Occupation  of  Cuxhaven  by  Prussian  Troops^ 

Berlin,  November  i8,  1800. 

The  undersigned,  Extraordinary  Envoy  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  thinks  himself  obliged  again  tO'  address 
himself  to  his  Excellency  Count  Haugwitz,  relative  to  the  intention  of 
His  Prussian  Majesty,  in  taking  military  possession  of  Cuxhaven. 
When  the  undersigned  had  the  honor  of  transmitting  to  his  Excellency 
the  verbal  note  of  the  16th,  it  was  not  exactly  known  "that  the  Prus- 
sian vessel  brought  into  that  port  had  been  restored."  The  fact  being 
now  certain,  as  well  as  the  zeal  manifested  by  the  Senate  of  Hamburg 
to  fulfil  the  wishes  of  the  King,  the  surprise  and  consternation  excited 
from  the  moment  when  the  orders  for  marching  a  detachment  of 
troops  were  known,  would  be  raised  to  their  utmost  height,  if  it  were 
ascertained,  that,  notAvithstanding  the  complete  satisfaction  given  to 
His  Prussian  Majesty  on  all  tlie  points  respecting  which  he  thought 
proper  to  complain,  he  should  not  appear  less  attached  to  his  deter- 
mination of  causing  Cuxliaven  to  be  occupied  by  his  troops.  In  fact,  it 
appears  at  first  sight  that  this  occupation  would  be  so  calculated  to 
give  the  most  serious  alarms  to  all  commercial  nations,  that,  without 
alluding  to  the  interpretations  which  calumny  might  be  desirous  of 
giving  to  the  measure,  strong  hopes  are  entertained  from  the  justice 
and  moderation  of  His  Prussian  Majesty,  for  that  reason  only,  that 
he  will  not  come  to  the  resolution  of  carrying  it  into  effect. 

The  undersigned  would  not,  however,  think  he  had  executed  his 
duty,  should  he  neglect  to  represent  to  his  Excellency  the  lively  alarms 
which  necessarily  result  from  the  uncertainty  in  which  the  affair  re- 
mains. The  reiterated  assurances  which  the  undersigned  has  received 
from  his  Excellency  of  the  friendship  and  good  wishes  of  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty  towards  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  do  not  allow  him  to 
believe  that  any  misunderstanding  can  arise  between  the  two  Courts; 
but  he  can  not  avoid  thinking  that  the  enemies  of  humanity  and  public 
tranquillity  will  endeavor  to  turn  to  their  purposes  the  alarm  which  is 
generally  diffused,  in  order  to  scatter  discord  among  the  Powers,  which 
will  all  unite  and  maintain  the  safety  and  independence  of  Europe  at 
large. 

Carysfort 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  199. 


516  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Order  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  relative  to  the  Embargo  on  English 
Vessels,  November  18,  1800^ 

The  crews  of  two  English  vessels  in  the  port  of  Narva  having,  at  the 
approach  of  the  military  force  instructed  to  arrest  them,  in  conformity 
v/ith  the  decreed  embargo,  resisted,  fired  their  pistols,  and  sunk  a  Rus- 
sian vessel,  and  thereupon  having  weighed  anchor  and  taken  flight. 
His  Imperial  Majesty  has  seen  fit  to  order  the  burning  of  a  vessel 
which  had  remained  in  that  port. 

St.  Petersburg,  November  21. 
As  a  result  of  information  received  from  Palermo,  with  regard  to 
the  part  played  in  the  taking  of  Malta  by  Italinskoi  the  present  Cham- 
berlain, it  has  pleased  the  Emperor  to  have  delivered  to  the  members 
of  the  diplomatic  corps  residing  at  his  Court  a  note,  signed  by  the 
Presiding  Minister  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Count  Ros- 
topsin  and  by  the  Vice  Chancellor,  Count  Panin,  of  the  following 
tenor: 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  has  received  de- 
tailed information  concerning  the  surrender  of  Malta,  confirming 
the  report  that,  in  spite  of  repeated  representations,  both  on  the 
part  of  his  Minister  at  Palermo  and  of  the  Ministry  of  His  Sicilian 
Majesty,  the  English  commanders  have  taken  possession  of  Valetta 
and  the  Island  of  Malta  in  the  name  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Great  Britain,  and  that  they  have  raised  their  flag  there  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others.  His  Majesty,  justly  irritated  by  such  a 
violation  of  good  faith,  has  therefore  resolved  not  to  raise  the  eni- 
bargo  placed  upon  English  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Russia  until  the 
stipulations  of  the  convention  concluded  in  1798  have  been  fully 
complied  with. 


Reply  of  Count  Haugwitz  to  Lord  Carysfort,  November  20.  1800' 

The  undersigned,  Minister  of  State  and  of  the  Cabinet,  is  author- 
ized by  the  orders  of  the  King  to  completely  tranquillize  the  anxieties 


iprom  the   Court  Gazette.     Translation.     French   text,   Martens,    Rccucil,   2d 
ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  155. 

Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  200. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  517 

and  apprehensions  which  my  Lord  Carysfort,  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  expressed  to 
him  in  his  two  notes  of  the  16th  and  18th  of  November.  The  Prussian 
vessel,  the  Triton,  has,  it  is  true,  been  restored  to  its  owner ;  but  the 
mode  of  release  was  in  every  respect  as  irregular  as  the  proceedings 
which  had  previously  taken  place  with  respect  to  it ;  and  after  an  ex- 
amination of  all  the  circumstances  relative  to  the  incident  which  forms 
the  subject  of  complaint,  there  appears  throughout  the  whole  a  mani- 
fest infraction  of  the  principles  of  the  neutrality  of  the  north  of  Ger- 
many. It  is  this  superior  consideration,  added  to  the  unjust  refusal 
of  the  magistracy  of  Ham.burg,  which  dictated  to  the  King  the  resolu- 
tion of  causing  a  body  of  his  troops  to  occupy  the  port  of  Cuxhaven, 
and  the  bailiwick  of  Ritzebiittel.  This  measure  was  executed  the 
moment  it  was  determined  upon,  and  it  is  no  longer  capable  of  being 
revoked,  the  example  of  what  has  taken  place,  imposing  on  His 
Majesty  the  necessity  of  effectually  watching  over  the  maintenance  of 
that  neutrality  which  he  has  guaranteed  to  his  coestates.  The  King 
can  not  imagine  that  His  Britannic  Majesty,  after  participating,  in 
his  character  of  Elector  of  Hanover,  in  the  advantages  and  benefits  of 
this  happy  neutrality,  can  coniceive  the  smallest  alarm  at  seeing  a  Prus- 
sian garrison  enter  into  the  port  which  England  has  fixed  on  as  her 
point  of  communication  with  the  north  of  Germany.  Being  thus 
placed  under  the  immediate  guarantee  of  the  King,  it  will  be  the  more 
effectually  put  out  of  the  reach  of  all  violation,  and  the  troops  of  His 
Majesty  will  have  no  other  duty  to  perform  than  that  of  causing  the 
laws  of  good  order  and  equity  to  be  respected.  The  utmost  confi- 
dence may  be  placed  in  the  prudent  dispositions  of  the  reigning  Duke 
of  Brunswick,  who  is  invested  with  the  command  of  the  line  of  de- 
marcation. 

But,  if  more  particular  assurances  be  requisite  upon  this  subject,  the 
King  feels  a  pleasure  in  giving  them  by  the  present  communication  to 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  and  in  declaring  to  him,  in  express  and  positive 
terms,  that  the  present  order  of  things  will  in  no  respect  interrupt  the 
freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  in  the  port  of  Cuxhaven ;  nor, 
above  all,  the  continuation  of  the  correspondence  with  England.  On 
the  contrary,  the  officer  commanding  the  troops  of  the  King  garrisoned 
in  the  bailiwick  of  Ritzebiittel,  will  make  it  his  duty  to  give  it  every 
possible  facility. 

On  the  whole,  the  proceeding  which  the  King  has,  from  necessity, 


518  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

been  obliged  to  follow,  does  not  admit  of  any  equivocal  interpretation. 
It  has  no  other  object  than  the  maintenance  of  the  system  of  which  he 
is  the  author  and  defender;  and  this  object  shall  not  be  exceeded.  His 
views  and  conduct  have  procured  him  the  confidence  of  all  Europe, 
and  they  never  will  be  found  inconsistent ;  and  though  it  is  not  to  be 
anticipated  that  the  other  Powers  will  be  disposed  to  misconceive  tlie 
purity  of  his  views  in  the  present  case,  yet  His  Majesty  reserves  to 
himself  the  privilege  of  explaining  himself  further  and  in  a  suitable 
manner  to  those  who  may  be  entitled  to  such  explanation. 

Haugwitz 


Proclamation  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  November  23,  1800,  announc- 
ing the  Occupation  of  Ritzebiittel  and  Cuxhaven^ 

By  express  order  of  His  Prussian  Majesty,  Frederick  William  HI, 
my  most  gracious  sovereign,  announcement  is  made  that  the  temporary 
occupation  of  the  District  of  Ritzebiittel  and  Cuxhaven  by  the  troops 
which  I  command  and  which  are  a  detachment  of  the  army  of  ob- 
servation under  orders  to  protect  the  armed  neutrality  of  the  north 
and  of  Germany,  has  been  caused  by  the  capture  of  a  Prussian  ship. 
The  difference  arising  from  this  capture  has  at  length  been  arranged 
after  certain  customary  explanations  and  protestations  of  friendship. 

But  as  the  march  of  the  troops,  which  became  necessary  as  a  result 
of  the  lack  of  success  of  the  first  explanations,  had  been  ordered  and 
was  already  partially  executed,  His  Pnissian  Majesty  deemed  it  ad- 
visable to  proceed  with  the  execution  of  the  orders  and  to  take  posses- 
sion of  Ritzebiittel  and  Cuxhaven,  in  order  to  prevent  similar  disputes 
in  future,  and  to  make  sure,  for  the  greater  security  and  observance  of 
neutrality,  of  a  place  so  important  and  so  necessary  to  the  States  below 
the  line  of  demarcation. 

Such  is  the  only  object  of  the  troops  under  my  orders.  As  their 
head,  my  first  desire  is  to  preserve  public  security  and  tranquillity, 
particularly  with  regard  to  the  system  of  neutrality ;  and  not  only  will 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  165. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  519 

I  uphold  with  all  my  forces  the  authority  of  the  magistrates  appointed 
by  the  city  of  Hamburg,  but  I  shall  also  protect  the  rights  of  all  in- 
habitants or  foreigners  who  come  here  in  the  course  of  their  business, 
and  especially  in  their  commerce  and  navigation,  which  shall  not  be  in- 
terrupted in  the  slightest  degree,  but,  on  the  contrary,  better  protected 
and  encouraged,  without  the  least  alteration  in  the  constitution  and 
practices  of  the  district  which  I  am  occupying. 

All  persons,  therefore,  who  inhabit  or  happen  to  be  in  this  district, 
are  enjoined  to  show  toward  the  troops  that  I  command  the  same 
friendly  regard  and  bearing  as  these  troops  have  toward  them,  and 
thereby  avert  the  inevitable  fatal  consequences,  which  would  result 
from  tlie  opposite  attitude. 


Explanatory  Answer  to  the  Observations  on  the  subject  of  the 
Capture  of  Neutral  Ships,  December  15,  1800^ 

The  iate  misunderstanding  between  the  Danish  and  British  Govern- 
ments is  now  happily  removed  by  a  convention  alike  satisfactory  to 
both  nations,  and  that  harmony  again  restored  between  the  two  Courts, 
which  for  a  moment  had  been  interrupted.  The  scandalous  reports 
that  this  interruption  gave  birth  to,  are  now  refuted  by  evident  facts; 
the  fantastical  notion  of  great  and  extensive  plans,  formed  by  the 
northern  Powers  for  diminishing  the  trade  and  navigation  oif  Great 
Britain,  has  vanished ;  and  we  see,  in  the  clearest  manner,  the  fair  and 
honorable  conduct  of  a  State,  which  certain  persons  have  not  been 
ashamed  rashly  to  accuse  of  assisting  a  commerce  carried  on  contrary 
to  treaties,  by  affording  the  protection  of  its  ships  of  war  to^  vessels 
laden  with  contraband.  Of  the  six  ships  which  were  captured  under 
convoy  of  the  Freya  frigate,  the  cargoes  were  most  minutely  examined ; 
the  result,  however,  was,  that  not  only  not  the  smallest  particle  of  con- 
traband commodities  could  be  discovered,  but  not  even  the  least  proba- 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  180.  "This  paper  was  written  in  answer 
to  the  preceding  publication  issued  by  a  noble  Lord  [ante,  p.  494].  It  is  of  high 
importance,  as  it  discusses  the  great  question  which  now  interests  the  public.  It 
has  only  been  circulated  in  private,  but  it  is  supposed  to  carry  with  it  an 
authority  almost  oflScial."     Ibid. 


520  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

bility  of  any  hostile  or  illicit  interest  being  mingled  in  the  property ; 
such  an  event  was,  doubtless,  but  little  expected  by  those  persons  who 
have  been  already  alluded  to ;  it  disappointed  their  wishes,  it  baffled 
their  endeavors  to  disseminate  the  seed  of  national  hatred  and  rancor 
amongst  their  countrymen,  and,  if  possible,  to  extend  the  first  dissatis- 
faction to  an  irremediable  breach  of  amity,  when  perhaps  the  public 
disasters  might  afiford  them  the  opportunity  of  gratifying  their  private 
animosities  or  ambition ;  the  reconciliation,  on  the  contrary,  which  has 
taken  place,  will  unite  still  closer  two  nations,  between  whom  an  old 
and  unreniitting  friendship  has  subsisted ;  more  especially,  if  to  this 
public  union  be  superadded  a  mutual  confidence  between  the  subjects 
of  the  respective  countries ;  and  if  those  impressions  be  removed,  which 
such  violent  accusations  frequently  repeated,  and  even  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  important  names,  must  necessarily  have  left  behind. 

Amongst  the  various  publications  which  have  appeared  in  England 
upon  this  subject,  some  observations  inserted  in  the  London  Clvronicle, 
and  other  papers,  and  universally  understood  to  have  been  written  by  a 
nobleman,  who  not  only  since  resided  at  Copenhagen  in  a  diplomatic 
character,  are  remarkable,  as  well  from  the  implacable  tone  in  which 
they  are  delivered,  as  on  account  of  the  magnitude  of  the  charges  con- 
tained in  them.  The  reasons  which  might  induce  that  noble  Lord  to 
so  violent  a  display  of  hatred  against  Denmark,  are  pretty  generally 
known,  or  it  could  not  but  create  surprise  in  his  readers,  that  such  a 
stream  of  invectives  should  flow  from  the  pen  of  a  gentleman  who  had 
been  lately  invested  with  the  high  and  respectable  ofHce  of  representing 
his  sovereign  at  the  Court  of  that  very  nation  against  which,  though 
still  in  alliance,  his  invectives  were  directed ;  of  a  gentleinan,  whose 
situation  at  that  Court  must  necessarily  have  made  him  acquainted  with 
the  many  violations  of  neutral  commerce,  of  which,  either  as  the 
natural  consequence  of  the  principles  adopted  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, or  as  transgressions  of  their  orders,  such  frequent  and  well- 
founded  complaints  had  Ixien  made;  lastly,  of  a  gentleman  who  could 
not  be  ignorant  of  the  many  regulations  which  the  Danish  Government 
had  made  to  prevent  abuses,  and  which,  had  they  been  suffered  to  pass 
unnoticed,  might  indeed  have  rendered  it  questionable,  how  far  the 
neutrality  and  intentions  of  Denmark  were  sincere.  It  would  have 
been  more  honorable  for  his  Lordship,  more  consistent  with  the  public 
character  which  he  had  sustained,  to  have  explained  any  misunder- 
standings  that   had   arisen,   to   have   soothed    the  irritation   of   men's 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  521 

minds,  and  to  have  spoken  the  language  of  peace,  at  the  time  when  a 
dangerous  spark,  fallen  amongst  the  nations  of  the  north,  threatened 
to  extend  still  further  that  general  conflagration  in  which  Europe  was 
involved ;  his  Lordship,  however,  has  tliought  proper  to  display  a  very 
different  way  of  thinking. 

We  will  now  examine  accurately  the  charges  contained  in  the  above- 
mentioned  publication.  It  is  not  of  the  actions  of  individuals  of  which 
he  is  complaining;  it  is  of  the  general  sentiments  of  a  nation,  of  the 
intentions  of  its  government:  thes^  are  the  objects  of  his  attack.  He 
accuses  the  northern  Courts,  and  particularly  that  of  Denmark,  of 
looking  with  an  eye  of  jealousy  and  envy  at  the  commercial  prosperity 
of  Great  Britain ;  he  represents  the  Danes  as  a  nation  at  semi-warfare 
with  England,  under  the  mask  of  neutrality ;  he  warns  his  countrymen 
to  be  on  their  guard  against  "stiletto  attacks  and  secret  blows  from 
beneath  the  neutral  cloak  of  Denmark  and  Sweden" ;  he  then  goes  on 
to  assert,  that  "the  illicit  practices  of  neutrals  assume  the  aspect  of  an 
hostile  disregard  to  common  usage  and  the  law  of  nations,  and  appear 
to  be  countenanced  by  those  verj^  authorities,  whose  duty  it  is  to  check 
and  suppress  them" ;  in  fine,  he  holds  out  Denmark  in  particular,  "as 
the  standard  of  the  most  unwarrantable  proceedings  ever  ascribed  to  a 
nation  in  amity  with  His  Majesty." 

It  is  hard  innocently  to  suffer  under  the  pressure  of  circumstances, 
but  one  may  sustain  mere  losses  and  be  silent;  it  is  afflicting  to  see 
one's  property  suddenly  exposed  to  accidents,  which  threaten  to  anni- 
hilate at  a  blow  those  fruits  of  our  labor  which  have  been  slowly  and 
gradually  acquired ;  an  open  attack  rouses  one's  powers  to  resistance, 
and  constancy  will  always  find,  in  struggling  for  a  good  cause,  means 
and  resources  which  the  assailant  never  thought  of ;  but  the  most  pain- 
ful of  all  trials  is  to  find  one's  self,  when  suffering,  misrepresented  and 
abused ;  nor  can  it  be  denied  that  his  malice  is  the  most  effective,  who, 
working  upon  the  irritated  passions,  excites  suspicion  and  hatred  in  the 
minds  of  nations  which  were,  till  then,  united  in  mutual  bonds  of 
friendship  and  alliance. 

It  is  not  the  intention  of  these  sheets  to  renew  the  memory  of  an 
affair  which  should  have  rendered  the  author  of  the  observations  more 
cautious  in  what  he  published  ;  much  less  do  we  propose  to  defend  the 
actions  of  individuals,  whose  punishment  (if  they  ha\e  really  given 
cause  for  complaint)  belongs  solely  to  courts  of  justice;  on  the  con- 
trary,  we  shall   confine  ourselves  to  what  the  noble   I^ord   has  been 


522  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

pleased  to  assert  respecting-  the  sentiments  and  general  conduct  of  the 
Danish  Government,  taking,  at  the  same  time,  the  opportmiity  thor- 
oughly to  examine  these  pretended  plans  of  commercial  aggrandize- 
ment, which  he  so  roundly  accuses  our  nation  of  endeavoring  to  carry 
into  effect. 

With  respect  to  the  supposed  jealousy  of  Denmark  and  her  Govern- 
ment, at  the  commercial  prosperity  of  Great  Britain,  it  is  so  totally 
forgotten,  that,  even  in  the  course  of  the  present  war,  by  a  new  regu- 
lation of  the  customs,  a  variety  of  foreign  articles,  the  importation  of 
which  was  till  then  prohibited,  are  now  permitted  to  be  brought  in, 
and  of  consequence  a  new  channel  of  trade  opened  to  other  nations. 
Can  it  have  escaped  the  reflection  of  any  impartial  observer,  that  such 
a  change  of  commercial  regulations  is  the  ver\'  reverse  of  any  plan  on 
the  part  of  Denmark  to  injure  or  diminish  the  trade  of  her  neighbors; 
or  that  the  English,  whose  ships  are  admitted  to  equal  privileges  with 
those  of  Danish  subjects  themselves,  and  whose  industry  and  enter- 
prise are  so  much  greater,  must  be  the  principal  gainers  by  this  altera- 
tion? Upon  the  question,  therefore,  of  the  principles  and  spirit  of  the 
Danish  Government,  it  is  but  reasonable  if  we  insist  upon  being  tried 
and  adjudged  by  such  measures. 

With  respect  to  those  abuses  of  neutrahty,  which  the  noble  Lord 
does  not  hesitate  to  represent  as  countenanced  and  supported  by  the 
Danish  Government,  it  can  not  be  denied,  that  some  particular  persons 
have,  by  their  conduct,  given  cause  for  a  reasonable  suspicion  of  en- 
deavoring, in  their  connections  with  foreigners,  improperly  to  convert 
the  laws  and  treaties  of  their  country  to  their  private  advantage.  The 
question  however  is,  whether  the  Danish  Government  (whose  duty 
it  never  can  be  pretended  to  be,  to  put  arbitrary  bounds  to  the  lawful 
commercial  profits  of  its  subjects)  has  ever  taken  any  steps  towards 
preventing  such  abuses  as  might  justly  supply  occasion  for  complaint; 
whether,  lx)th  before  and  after  the  commencement  of  the  present  war, 
laws  have  not  been  published,  and  other  measures  taken,  the  grand 
object  of  which  was  to  preserve  the  trade  of  Denmark  within  the  limits 
prescribed  by  treaty,  by  checking  the  fraudulent  designs  of  certain  un- 
principled individuals ;  and,  finally,  whether  those  offenders,  whose 
transgressions  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  magistrates,  have 
been  brought  to  public  justice,  and  punished  as  they  deserved? 

Immediately  upon  the  commencement  of  maritime  operations  in  the 
present  war,  the  necessary  qualities  and  duties  of  those  persons  who 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  523 

were  desirous,  either  as  ship-owners  or  masters,  to  enjoy  the  advan- 
tages which  the  happy  neutrahty  of  Denmark  seemed  to  offer,  were 
most  minutely  and  accurately  defined  by  two  royal  ordonnances,  dated 
22d  and  23d  of  February,  1793.^  According  to  the  rule  laid  down  in 
these  ordonnances,  every  person  who  solicited  a  royal  passport  must 
be  a  Danish  citizen,  settled  within  the  King's  dominions,  that  is  to  say, 
having  a  fixed  abode,  the  domicile  and  residence,  if  married,  of  his 
family,  and  if  not,  of  himself,  when  not  occasionally  absent  upon 
business;  he  must  also,  if  tims  qualified  as  a  citizen,  be  provided  with 
a  certificate  from  the  proper  magistrates,  stating  his  declaration  upon 
oath  before  them,  either  that  the  ship  is  solely  his  property,  or,  if  there 
be  coowners,  that  every  one  of  them  without  exception  is  a  Danish 
subject;  together  with  a  clause  also  upon  oath,  that  the  ship  is  not 
laden  with  any  articles  declared  to  be  contraband  by  any  treaty,  nor 
with  goods  belonging  to  any  of  the  belligerent  Powers  or  their  sub- 
jects. It  is  not  till  after  the  fulfilment  of  all  these  conditions,  that  a 
passport  can  be  issued,  which  even  then,  in  order  to  prevent  all  possible 
abuses  by  a  second  expedition,  is  valid  only  for  a  single  voyage,  that  is, 
till  the  return  of  the  ship  to  some  port  in  Denmark.  It  must  be  fur- 
ther observed,  that  all  those  vessels  which  are  intended  to  sail  beyond 
Cape  Finisterre,  must  be  provided  with  other  passports,  grantable  to 
none  but  such  as  have  already  been  Danish  citizens  for  the  space  at 
least  of  three  years.  I  shall  pass  over  the  further  obligations  binding 
on  ship-owners,  as  to  other  needful  documents  for  their  vessels ;  such 
are  the  builder's  brief,  bill  of  sale,  measuring-bill,  muster-roll,  etc.,  etc., 
and  proceed  to  a  few  necessary  explanations  on  the  two  subjects  of 
contraband  and  admission  to  the  rights  of  burgher  or  citizen. 

Upon  the  breaking  out  of  the  present  hostilities,  a  very  considerable 
number  of  persons  delivered  in  petitions,  praying  to  be  admitted  to 
the  privileges  of  the  burghership,  some  with  intent  to  settle  in  a 
country  exempted  from  the  horrors  of  war;  others,  that,  in  their  re- 
spective characters  of  mariners,  or  ship-masters,  they  might  again  ob- 
tain employment  in  that  way  of  life  in  which  they  had  been  educated, 
and  which  could  now  no  longer  be  had  in  their  native  countries :  this 
was  more  especially  the  case  in  His  Majesty's  German  dominions, 
which  being  situated  nearer  to  the  scene  of  war,  seemed,  upon  that 
account,  to  require  more  particular  attention.     The  precaution,  there- 


^See  ante,  p.  436. 


524  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

fore,  which  had  been  taken  by  the  ordonnances  of  the  22d  and  23d  of 
February,  1793,^  were  not  thought  sufficient ;  and  accordingly  two  other 
ordonnances  were  pubHshed  on  the  23d  and  24th  of  December,  1796, 
by  which  it  was  decreed,  that,  besides  the  conditions  already  detailed, 
no  married  man  should  be  admitted  to  the  rights  of  a  burgher,  whose 
family  resided  in  any  other  place  than  that  m  which  he  was  a  candidate 
for  the  burghership;  and  that  every  captain  or  master  of  a  vesssel 
should  find  undeniable  security  to  the  amount  of  200  rix-dollars,  which 
security  was  not  to  be  released  till  the  expiration  of  five  years ;  a  space 
of  time  considered  as  sufficient  to  determine  whether  he  entertained  a 
real  intention  of  settling  forever  within  the  territories  of  His  Danish 
Majesty.  It  was  further  directed,  in  order  to  prevent  foreigners  from 
settling  in  the  villages  or  in  the  country,  where  they  might  easily  with- 
draw themselves  from  the  eyes  of  the  police,  that  no  stranger  should 
be  permitted  to  exercise  the  profession  of  a  mariner,  unless  he  became 
a  burgher  of  some  commercial  town  or  other  place  entitled  to  the  same 
privileges.  When  these  facts  and  ordonnances  are  compared  with  what 
the  noble  Lord  has  been  pleased  to  advance  as  to  the  facility  of  Danish 
burghership,  asserting,  "that  the  privileges  of  being  admitted  to  the 
rights  of  a  burgher  in  each  Danish  city,  is  sold  to  the  first  comer,  with- 
out any  attention  being  paid  whether  the  person  is  a  Cherokee  Indian, 
Mandingo  negro,  English  or  Dutchman,"  one  can  not  but  be  led  to 
suspect  that  the  accusation  is  founded  on  something  else  than  mere 
ignorance  of  the  real  situation  of  afifairs. 

Nor  less  extraordinary  is  the  charge  which  the  noble  Lord  has  ven- 
tured to  make  with  respect  to  contraband.  ''The  harbors,"  says  he, 
"of  Carthagena,  Cadiz,  Ferrol,  Toulon,  L'Orient,  Brest,  and  Rochefort, 
have  received  all  their  naval  stores  from  the  hands  of  neutrals" :  and 
then  he  goes  on  to  impeach  the  Danish  flag,  as  taking  the  principal 
share  in  this  illicit  commerce.  It  is  only  the  consummate  assurance 
with  which  this  accusation  is  made  by  the  pen  of  a  man  of  his  rank 
and  office,  that  can,  perhaps,  for  a  moment  procure  it  credit  with  a 
few  of  his  countrymen.  If,  indeed,  the  Government  of  Denmark  has, 
upon  any  point,  made  use  of  peculiar  precautions  to  secure  itself  from 
blame  or  suspicion,  it  has  been  upon  this.  Exclusive  of  the  rules  laid 
down  in  the  afore-mentioned  royal  ordonnances,  another  decree  was 
promulgated  on  the  28th  of  March,  1794,  under  a  supposition  that  some 

^See  ante,  p.  436. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  525 

abuses  had  taken  place;  in  this  the  exportation  of  every  species  of 
contraband  to  a  belligerent  State  is  severely  prohibited:  and  in  case 
of  the  shipment  of  such  articles  for  neutral  ports,  the  ship-owners  are 
bound  to  deliver  to  the  proper  magistrates  certificates  of  the  arrival 
and  unloading  of  these  articles  at  the  respective  neutral  ports  to  which 
they  had  been  avowedly  destined.  We  will  venture  to  assert,  that  no 
commercial  nation  ever  before  adopted  such  strong  and  effectual  means 
to  avoid  and  secure  itself  from  any  reproach  of  this  sort ;  and  we  defy, 
in  the  face  of  all  Europe,  the  noble  Lord,  and  all  our  other  open  and 
secret  enemies,  to  produce  a  single  fact  to  prove,  that  from  this  period 
there  has  been  exported  from  any  Danish  port  any  contraband  of  war 
destined  to  any  port  of  a  belligerent.  Had  his  Lordship  been  ac- 
quainted with  such  an  instance,  he  had  the  means  of  preferring  his 
complaints  in  the  name  of  his  nation,  with  the  most  positive  certainty 
of  obtaining  all  possible  satisfaction.  Such  an  odious  insinuation, 
therefore,  whether  originating  from  the  noble  Lord  himself,  or  from 
some  other  person,  of  whose  secret  malice  he  may  not  have  been  aware, 
thrown  out  too  in  general  expressions,  without  proof,  without  in- 
stancing a  single  fact,  and  at  a  time  when  fears  and  anxieties  pervaded 
every  bosom,  can  not  but  render  the  motive  to  it  extremely  suspicious. 
The  ordonnance  of  July  25,  1798,  concerning  the  merchantmen  from 
Fleckeroe,  contained  also  the  strictest  regulations  that  can  well  be  de- 
vised for  preventing  the  secret  conveyance  of  military  contraband  by 
the  Danish  merchant  ships  sailing  under  convoy :  the  result  has  fully 
demonstrated  the  efficacy  of  these  measures;  and  the  severity  which 
has  been  displayed  in  punishing  every  offense  against  these  regula- 
tions, when  publicly  denounced  and  legally  proved,  must  convince 
every  impartial  observer,  that  the  Danish  Government  was  seriously 
resolved  not  to  suffer  the  violation  of  its  laws.  The  partners  in  a  mer- 
cantile house  in  Copenhagen,  against  whom  an  information  was  laid 
at  the  suit  of  the  King's  attorney,  for  an  abuse  with  respect  to  royal 
sea  passes,  have  long  since  been  exiled :  another  person,  a  ship-owner, 
who  had  sold  his  name  as  a  cover  for  vessels  belonging  to  belligerents, 
was  punished  with  banishment,  his  name  rendered  infamous,  and  his 
property  confiscated ;  and  even  at  this  moment  several  prosecutions  of 
the  same  nature  are  pending  before  the  tribunals.  So  much  by  way  of 
reply  to  the  naked  assertion  of  the  noble  Lord,  that  any  illicit  and 


526  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

fraudulent  practices  of  neutralization  are  favored  and  supported  by 
those  very  authorities  upon  whom  it  is  incum]>ent  to  prevent  the  flag 
from  being  abused,  and  to  watch  over  the  lawful  course  of  commerce. 

But  our  author,  who  is,  it  seems,  fully  instructed  in  the  secret  springs 
which  actuate  the  northern  Powers,  and  Denmark  in  particular,  sup- 
plies us  with  some  perfectly  new,  and  indeed  unexpected  illustrations. 
Great  plans,  says  he,  were  formed  for  monopolizing  the  trade  and  navi- 
gation of  the  Dutch  into  Danish  hands ;  for  covering  the  trade  to  the 
French  and  Dutch  W'^est  India  settlements,  and  converting  it  to  their 
own  profit:  the  whole  traffic  of  the  Mauritius  was  carried  on  through 
Danish  hands ;  the  settlement  at  Batavia  was  alone,  by  their  means, 
preserved  to  the  mother  country ;  the  hostile  design  of  interrupting 
the  commerce  of  Britain  became  prevalent  throughout  the  nation ;  and 
the  Government  found  itself  as  unable  to  resist  the  temptation  of  levy- 
ing taxes  and  imposing  duties  upon  this  commerce,  as  the  merchants 
were  of  monopolizing  it. 

The  strong  and  obvious  reply  which  everybody  acquainted  with  the 
subject  must  make  to  the  accusation,  is  this,  that  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment never  has  interfered,  nor  does  it  now  in  the  smallest  degree,  with 
the  commerce  of  its  subjects;  it  acknowledges  it  to  be  its  duty  to  pro- 
mote the  prosperity  of  the  country  by  every  proper  support  on  its  part ; 
to  protect  every  fair  branch  of  industry ;  and,  as  far  as  may  be  in  its 
power,  to  promote  every  natural  and  accustomed  trade,  and  secure  it 
from  molestation ;  but  as  to  speculations,  it  leaves  these  entirely  to  the 
individuals  who  make  it  their  business  to  avail  themselves  of  times 
and  circumstances,  according  to  their  skill :  in  such  cases  it  only  inter- 
feres when  compelled  to  act  either  as  a  judge  of  the  actions  of  its  sub- 
jects, or  as  their  protector  against  unjust  attacks.  With  respect  to  the 
revenues  which  the  Danish  Government  derives  from  the  trade  car- 
ried on  by  its  subjects,  it  is  indeed  extraordinary  how  these  can  be  an 
object  of  reproach  in  the  mouth  of  the  subject  of  a  country,  which 
from  her  own  commerce,  extended  over  every  ocean,  collects  the  most 
considerable  part  of  her  revenue,  and  the  most  efficacious  means  of 
greatness.  In  Denmark  these  duties  are  so  moderate,  that  they  may 
be  considered  as  barely  furnishing  the  supply  necessary  for  those 
various  charges  of  the  State,  which  the  conduct  of  the  belligerents,  and 
the  precautions  requisite  for  securing  trade  from  absolute  destruc- 
tion, have  occasioned ;  and  the  Government  has  always  been  willing  to 
forego  a  part  the  moment  it  appeared  likely  to  produce  misunder- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  527 

Standing  or  inconvenience;  such,  for  instance,  was  the  revoking  the 
liberty  granted  of  carrying  freights  from  the  East  Indies  to  ports  in 
Europe  (a  privilege  then  used  by  only  four  vessels),  as  soon  as  it  was 
apprehended  that  its  further  use  might  give  rise  to  abuses,  and  cause 
complaints  on  the  part  of  the  belligerent  Powers :  such,  also,  w^as  its 
putting  a  stop  to  the  distribution  of  those  passports,  which,  in  a  few 
instances,  had  been  granted  to  Danish  ship-owners  in  Europe  for  such 
vessels  as  they  had  given  instructions  to  purchase  in  the  East  Indies. 
But  to  return  to  the  commercial  projects  pretended  by  our  author 
to  have  been  formed  by  Denmark,  and  to  the  question  of  whether  there 
really  does  exist  a  plan  for  monopolizing  the  French  and  Dutch  East 
and  West  India  trade:  I  cannot  but  think  such  an  accusation  rather 
singular  from  an  English  statesman,  who  certainly  ought  not  to  have 
been  ignorant  that  his  countrymen,  even  before  his  publication  came 
out,  had  rendered  the  very  idea  of  such  a  design  impossible,  by  seizing 
on  the  greatest  part  of  the  French  and  Dutch  settlements  both  in  the 
East  and  West  Indies :  such  a  plan  too  must  have  been  discovered  by 
efforts  in  some  degree  at  least  corresponding  with  the  greatness  of  the 
undertaking.  If,  therefore,  the  case  be  otherwise,  the  noble  Lord  must 
forgive  us  for  treating  the  suggestion  as  altogether  a  chimera  of  his 
own  brain,  and  the  facts  which  follow  will  throw  some  light  upon  the 
subject. 

According  to  the  best  statistical  accounts,  the  French  trade  in  the 
West  Indies  before  the  revolution,  employed  every  year  600  vessels, 
each,  upon  an  average,  of  250  tons :  the  Dutch  trade  to  Surinam,  and 
the  other  West  India  settlements,  required  every  year  about  107  ves- 
sels. The  Dutch  East  India  Company  sent  every  year  to  Batavia  be- 
tween 20  and  30  large  vessels ;  and  the  French  trade  to  the  Mauritius, 
Bourbon,  and  the  coast  of  Guinea,  employed  about  180  vessels. 

It  might  be  foreseen  that  a  part  of  this  trade,  during  a  war  between 
the  great  maritime  Powers,  would  fall  into  neutral  hands ;  and  a  nation, 
which  owes  its  flourishing  condition  to  the  extent  of  its  trade,  can  not 
take  it  amiss  that  the  merchants  of  other  countries  also  know  how  to 
make  use  of  conjunctures :  but  what  proportion  do  our  commercial 
undertakings  bear  with  respect  to  the  plans  supp^osed  to  be  formed 
by  us? 

For  the  Danish  trade  to  the  West  Indies,  only  the  following  pass- 
ports have  been  distributed  throughout  all  the  Danish  dominions : 


528  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

In  the  year  1797,  to  vessels  bound  for  St.  Croix,  23 ;  for  St.  Thomas, 
21 ;  for  St.  Croix  and  St.  Thomas  together,  25 ;  for  the  West  Indies, 
without  mentioning  any  place  in  particular,  5 ;  for  foreign  settlements 
in  the  West  Indies,  12. 

In  the  year  1798,  for  St.  Croix,  26;  for  St.  Thomas,  22;  for  St. 
Croix  and  St.  Thomas  together,  18 ;  for  the  West  Indies  in  general,  1 ; 
for  foreign  settlements  in  the  West  Indies,  9. 

In  the  year  1799,  for  St.  Croix,  28;  for  St.  Thomas,  18;  for  St. 
Croix  and  St.  Thomas  together,  19;  for  the  West  Indies  in  general, 
none;  for  foreign  settlements  in  the  West  Indies,  10. 

Returned  from  the  East  Indies,  besides  those  ships  that  belong  to  the 
East  India  Company,  and  which  only  carry  on  a  direct  trade  to  the 
settlements  belonging  to  Denmark : 

In  the  year  1797,  eleven  vessels  for  private  account,  five  of  which 
were  from  the  Danish  settlements  at  Tranquebar,  and  in  Bengal :  the 
other  six  from  the  different  European  settlements  at  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope,  and  east  of  it ; 

In  the  year  1798,  thirteen  ships  for  private  account,  four  of  which 
were  sent  from  the  Danish,  the  rest  from  other  European  settlements. 

In  the  year  1799,  likewise  thirteen  ships  for  private  account,  four 
of  which  also  were  from  the  Danish  settlements. 

If  to  these  be  added  one  single  vessel  which  has  unloaded  a  cargo, 
chartered  in  the  East  Indies  upon  freight  to  a  port  without  the  Danish 
dominions,  this  is  a  complete  list  of  all  the  vessels  returned  from  the 
East  Indies  for  the  account  of  private  owners  during  the  above-men- 
tioned years. 

The  comparison  of  this  list,  with  the  many  hundred  vessels  which 
were  occupied  in  the  French  and  Dutch  East  and  West  India  trade, 
will  fully  enable  the  reader  to  judge  of  the  reality  of  the  plans  and 
operations  of  commerce,  said,  by  the  noble  Lord,  to  be  adopted  by  us, 
as  well  as  of  the  amount  of  our  profit,  greatly  lessened  by  the  fre- 
quent captures  of  many  valuable  cargoes.  If,  at  the  same  time,  it  is 
considered  that  a  trade  to  all  the  different  corners  of  the  world  occu- 
pies the  speculations  of  Danish  merchants  even  in  the  most  profound 
peace,  and  has  occasioned  a  proportionable  number  of  regular  ex- 
peditions, the  increase  of  our  commerce  in  these  branches,  the  direct 
trade  to  our  own  settlements  being  deducted,  will  hardly  justify  any 
jealous  apprehension,  or  be  looked  upon  as  an  encroachment  upon  the 
commerce  of  Great  Britain. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  529 

That  the  charge  of  hostile  endeavors  to  diminish  the  trade  of  Great 
Britain  is  not  founded  upon  real  fact,  or  upon  any  injuries  done  to 
that  country,  is  fully  demonstrated  by  taking  a  general  view  of  its 
traffic.  The  mercantile  fleet  of  Great  Britain  covers  every  sea;  and 
in  every  session  of  Parliament,  the  Minister  himself  congratulates  his 
nation  on  account  of  the  flourishing  state  of  its  commerce,  which, 
during  the  course  of  the  present  war,  has  arrived  to  a  height  beyond 
any  example  of  preceding  times.  The  value  of  the  import  trade  of 
Great  Britain  has  arisen  from  17,804,024£  to  which  it  amounted  in 
the  year  1787,  to  above  24  millions,  which  was  the  amount  in  the  year 
1798.  The  export,  which  in  the  year  1787  amounted  to  16,870,1 14£ 
was  in  the  year  1798  announced  to  be  33,655,396£.  In  the  year  1792, 
284  vessels  arrived  in  the  river  Thames  from  the  British  settlements 
in  the  West  Indies.  In  the  year  1798,  their  number  was  increased  to 
347.  The  maritime  trade  of  London  has,  since  the  year  1792,  accord- 
ing to  accounts  laid  before  Parliament,  been  augmented  by  1,000  ves- 
sels from  foreign  ports,  and  the  trade  of  the  whole  country  in  propor- 
tion. After  such  proofs,  it  must  be  plain  in  what  light  complaints  oi 
encroachments  upon  British  commerce  are  to  be  considered. 

Denmark  has  not  been  so  fortunate  in  the  increase  of  her  commerce, 
and  in  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  those  advantages,  to  which  her 
neutrality  (a  neutrality  not  maintained  without  many  sacrifices)  ought 
justly  to  have  entitled  her.  If,  indeed,  her  trade,  during  the  first  years 
of  the  war,  was  considerably  augmented,  those  advantages  have,  how- 
ever, of  late  remarkably  decreased,  and  some  sources  have  been  en- 
tirely lost,  partly  by  occurring  circumstances,  and  partly  by  the  sys- 
tem adopted  by  Great  Britain.  The  shipping  of  Denmark  has  of  late 
e\'idently  diminished.  The  rigorous  measures  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment ;  the  extended  instructions  given  to  their  ships  of  war  and  priva- 
teers, joined  to  the  frequent  and  vexatious  conduct  of  the  latter  in 
even  going  beyond  these  instructions ;  the  assumed  authority  of  the 
tribunals,  and,  in  particular,  the  unwarrantable  proceedings  of  the 
inferior  courts  of  admiralty  out  of  Europe,  together  with  the  slow 
progress  of  suits  in  the  superior  courts  of  justice:  these,  and  other 
circumstances,  the  recital  of  which  would  exceed  the  limi-ts  of  this 
answer,  have  not  failed,  by  their  influence,  to  destroy  our  trade  in  the 
first  moments  of  its  prosperity. 

By  declaring  even  principal  ports  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade,  during 


530  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

the  last  two  years,  Great  Britain  has  stopped  the  most  considerable; 
channels  of  Danish  commerce,  which  is  not  so  much  fomided  on  mere 
speculation,  as  on  the  export  and  import  of  mutual  necessaries.  In 
cases  of  blockade,  the  rights  of  the  blockading  Power  have  received  an 
extension,  which  is  neither  founded  on  common  usage,  nor  on  the  law 
of  nations.  Is  it  reasonable  that  a  mere  declaration  should  be  suffi- 
cient to  repel  all  neutral  ships  from  the  entire  coasts  of  a  country, 
even  when  there  is  not  an  armed  vessel  to  be  seen  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  the  blockade?  Nay,  for  a  neutral  to  have  left  a  port  blocked 
up  in  this  manner,  and  at  which  she  had  arrived  before  that  declara- 
tion, has  been  esteemed  a  crime  to  be  punished  with  condemnation. 
Between  the  declarations  of  all  the  Dutch  harbors  being  in  a  state  of 
blockade,  and  the  end  of  August  in  the  present  year,  120  Danish  ves- 
sels have  been  captured  by  the  English :  some  of  which  are  condemned, 
others  restored,  and  several  still  waiting  judgment  in  the  first  instance. 
Besides  these,  not  less  than  60  undecided  cases  are  pending  in  the 
court  of  appeals :  the  dates  of  some  of  these  are  very  old,  and  they  are 
all  of  importance.  It  is,  moreover,  almost  grown  into  a  rule,  that 
when  the  neutral  owner,  after  such  a  long  delay,  which  is  quite  con- 
trary to  treaty,  has  at  length  obtained  judgment  in  his  favor,  neither 
the  expenses  nor  interest  are  to  be  paid  to  him.  I  shall  remain  silent 
as  to  the  many  injustices  committed,  as  well  by  privateers  as  by  the 
tribunals  in  the  West  Indies,  where  cargoes,  consisting  of  Danish 
produce,  in  vessels,  of  which  there  was  not  the  smallest  doubt  of  their 
being  Danish,  and  bound  for  Danish  settlements,  have  been  confiscated 
without  the  least  comptmction,  and  that  on  the  most  unreasonable 
grounds.  This  may  be  sufficient  to  prove,  that  Denmark,  much  rather 
than  Great  Britain,  is  entitled  to  complain  of  encroachments  on  her 
trade,  and  of  commercial  jealousy. 

What  the  noble  Lord  finally  has  been  pleased  to  say  of  the  political 
strength  of  Denmark,  lies  not  within  the  bounds  of  this  essay.  He 
may,  however,  rest  assured,  that  Denmark,  in  the  wisdom  of  her  Gov- 
ernment and  in  the  patriotism  of  her  subjects,  will  always  find  effec- 
tual means  to  defend  herself  and  maintain  her  rights ;  and  that  this 
brave  nation,  on  whom  he  endeavors  to  throw  an  odium,  does  not  yield 
in  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  the  Government  of  any  other  nation  upon 
earth. 

December  i6,  iSoo. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  531 

Convention  between  Russia  and  Sweden  for  the  Reestablishment  of 
an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  16,  1800^ 

In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Indivisible  Trinity. 

The  freedom  of  navigation  and  security  of  commerce  of  neutral 
Powers  having  been  compromised,  and  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations  having  been  disregarded  in  the  present  naval  war,  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Sweden  and  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Rus- 
sias,  led  by  their  love  of  justice  and  by  an  equal  solicitude  for  all  that 
may  contribute  to  public  prosperity  in  their  States,  have  deemed  it 
advisable  to  give  a  new  sanction  to  the  principles  of  neutrality,  which, 
indestructible  in  their  essence,  require  only  the  cooperation  of  the 
Governments  interested  in  their  maintenance  to  make  them  respected. 
With  this  view  His  Imperial  Majesty  has  manifested,  by  the  declara- 
tion of  August  15^  to  the  Courts  of  the  north,  to  whose  interest  like- 
wise it  is  to  adopt  uniform  measures  under  similar  circumstances,  how 
greatly  he  has  at  heart  the  reestablishment,  in  all  its  inviolability,  the 
right  common  to  all  peoples  to  navigate  and  to  carry  on  commerce 
freely  and  independently  of  the  temporary  interests  of  belligerent  par- 
ties. His  Swedish  Majesty  shares  the  desires  and  sentiments  of  his 
august  ally,  and  a  happy  likeness  of  interests,  strengthening  their 
mutual  confidence,  has  determined  them  to  reestablish  the  system  of 
armed  neutrality,  which  was  followed  with  such  success  during  the 
last  American  war,  by  renewing  its  beneficent  maxims  in  a  new  con- 
vention adapted  to  present  circumstances. 

To  this  end,  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and  His  Imperial 
Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  have  appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries, 
to  wit :  His  Swedish  Majesty,  Baron  Court  de  Stedingk,  one  of  the 
Lords  of  the  Kingdom  of  Sweden,  his  Ambassador  Extraordinary  to 
His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  Lieutenant  General  in  \vs 
Armies,  Chamberlain  of  the  Queen  Dowager,  Colonel  of  a  Regiment 
of  Infantry,  Chevalier  Commander  of  his  Orders,  Grand  Cross  Chev- 
alier of  his  Order  of  the  Sword,  and  Chevalier  of  the  French  Order 
for  Military  Merit:  and  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias, 
Count  Theodore  de  Rostopsin,  his  Privy  Councilor,  Member  of  his 
Council,  Principal  Minister  of  the  College  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Post- 


iTranslation.  For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  672.  A.ccepted  and  ratified 
by  His  Swedish  Majesty  on  December  20,  and  by  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all 
the  Russias  on  December  8/20  of  the  same  year. 

2 August  27,  1800.  new  style.    Ante.  p.  489. 


532  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

master  General  of  the  Empire,  Grand  Chancellor  and  Grand  Cross  of 
the  Sovereign  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Chevalier  of  the  Or- 
ders of  St.  Andrew,  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and  of  St.  Anne  of  the 
First  Class,  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Lazare,  of  the  Annunciation,  of  St. 
Ferdinand,  of  St.  Maurice  and  of  St.  Lazare,  of  St.  Ferdinand  and 
of  St.  Hubert:  who  having  exchanged  their  respective  full  powers 
have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of 
all  the  Russias  declare  their  desire  to  see  to  the  strictest  enforce- 
ment of  the  prohibition  of  commerce  in  contraband  on  the  part  of 
their  subjects  with  any  of  the  Powers  whatsoever  now  at  war  or  that 
may  hereafter  enter  into  the  war. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  any  ambiguity  and  any  misunderstanding  regarding  what 
should  be  considered  contraband.  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and 
His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  declare  that  they  recognize 
as  such  only  the  following  articles,  to  wit :  cannon,  mortars,  firearms, 
pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets,  balls,  guns,  gun-flints,  fuses,  powder, 
saltpeter,  sulphur,  breastplates,  pikes,  swords,  swordbelts,  cartridge- 
boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  except  such  quantities  thereof  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  defense  of  the  vessel  and  of  those  composing  its 
crew ;  and  all  other  articles  whatsoever  not  here  enumerated  shall  not 
be  considered  war  or  naval  munitions,  nor  shall  they  be  subject  to 
confiscation,  and  consequently  they  shall  pass  freely  and  shall  not  be 
subjected  to  the  slightest  difficulties.  It  is  also  agreed  that  the  present 
article  shall  in  no  way  impair  the  special  provisions  of  previous  treaties 
with  the  belligerent  Parties,  by  which  articles  of  a  similar  nature  may 
have  been  reserved,  prohibited,  or  permitted. 

Article  3 

All  that  is  to  be  considered  contraband  having  thus  been  determined 
and  excluded  from  the  commerce  of  neutral  nations,  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  preceding  article.  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Sweden  and  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  intend  and  desire 
that  all  other  trade  shall  be  and  remain  absolutely  free.     In  order  to 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  533 

safeguard  adequately  the  general  principles  of  the  natural  law,  of 
which  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  the  rights  of 
neutral  peoples,  is  a  direct  consequence.  Their  Majesties  have  resolved 
to  leave  them  no  longer  at  the  mercy  of  an  arbitrary  interpretation 
that  may  be  influenced  by  isolated  and  temporary  interests.  To  this 
end  they  have  agreed: 

( 1 )  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band merchandise. 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  none  shall 
be  considered  such  except  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  shall 
have  disposed  and  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  to  render  access 
thereto  clearly  dangerous,  and  that  no  vessel  sailing  toward  a  blockaded 
port  shall  be  considered  as  having  contravened  the  present  convention, 
unless,  after  having  been  notified  by  the  commanding  officer  of  the 
blockading  fleet  of  the  condition  of  the  port,  it  shall  attempt,  either 
by  force  or  by  ruse,  to  enter  therein. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  not  be  arrested  except  for  just  cause 
and  for  self-evident  acts ;  that  their  cases  shall  be  tried  without  delay ; 
that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and 
that  in  every  instance,  in  addition  to  the  indemnities  granted  to  those 
who  have  suffered  loss,  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  be  rendered  to  the  flag  of  Their  Majesties. 

(5)  That  the  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  vessel 
or  vessels  of  the  royal  or  imperial  navy,  which  accompanies  the  convoy 
of  one  or  more  merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  carries  no  contraband 
merchandise,  must  be  considered  sufficient,  and  that  thereupon  there 
shall  be  no  occasion  to  visit  either  his  vessel  or  those  of  his  convoy. 

The  better  to  ensure  to  these  principles  the  respect  due  to  stipula- 
tions dictated  by  a  disinterested  desire  to  maintain  the  inalienable 
rights  of  neutral  nations,  and  to  give  further  proof  of  their  devotion 
to  and  love  of  justice,  the  high  contracting  Powers,  hereby  bind  them- 
selves most  solemnly  to  issue  new  and  strict  orders  forbidding  their 
captains,  whether  of  ships  of  the  line  or  of  merchant  ships,  to  load, 
hold,  or  conceal  on  board  any  articles  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  pres- 
ent convention,  might  be  considered  contraband,  and  to  see,  respect- 
ively, to  the  execution  of  the  orders  that  they  shall  have  published  in 


534  THE  ARMh-D  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

their  admiralties  and  wherever  else  it  may  be  necessary,  with  a  view 
to  which  the  ordinance,  which  shall  renew  this  prohibition  under  the 
severest  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the  end  of  the  present  act,^  in 
order  that  there  may  be  no  allegation  of  ignorance  thereof. 

Article  4 

To  protect  the  commerce  of  their  subjects  in  common  on  the  basis 
of  the  principles  hereinbefore  laid  down,  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Sweden  and  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias,  have  seen  fit  to 
equip  separately  a  number  of  war-ships  and  frigates  proportional  to 
this  object,  as  the  squadrons  of  each  Power  will  have  to  take  their 
station  and  to  be  used  for  such  convoying  as  its  commerce  and  its 
navigation  may  require,  in  conformity  with  the  nature  and  the  quality 
of  the  trade  of  each  nation. 

Article  5 

To  prevent  the  annoyances  that  may  arise  as  the  result  of  the  bad 
faith  of  those  who  make  use  of  the  flag  of  a  nation  to  which  they  do 
not  belong,  it  is  agreed  to  lay  down  as  an  inviolable  rule  that,  for  a 
vessel  to  be  considered  as  the  property  of  the  country  whose  flag  it 
flies,  its  captain  and  half  of  its  crew  must  belong  to  that  country,  and 
it  must  have  on  board  papers  and  passports  in  good  and  due  form ; 
but  any  vessel  that  shall  not  observe  this  rule  and  that  shall  con- 
travene the  published  ordinances  to  this  effect,  printed  at  the  end  of 
the  present  convention,  shall  lose  all  right  to  the  protection  of  the 
contracting  Powers,  and  the  Government  to  which  it  belongs  shall  bear 
alone  the  losses,  damages,  and  annoyances  that  may  result  therefrom. 

Article  6 

H  it  should  happen,  however,  that  the  merchant  ships  of  either  of 
the  Powers  should  be  in  waters  where  the  war-ships  of  the  same  na- 
tion are  not  stationed  and  where  they  could  not  have  recourse  to  their 
own  convoys,  then  the  commanding  officer  of  the  war-ships  of  the 
other  Power  must,  if  requested,  give  them,  sincerely  and  in  good 
faith,  the  assistance  that  they  may  need,  and  in  such  case,  the  war- 
ships and  frigates  of  either  of  the  Powers  shall  act  as  a  support  and 
protection  to  the  merchant  ships  of  the  other;  it  being  understood, 


^For  the  regulations  as  published  by  the  King  of  Sweden,  see  post,  p.  549. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  535 

however,  that  those  asking  such  aid  shall  not  have  engaged  in  any 
commerce  that  is  illicit  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of  neutrality. 

Article  7 

This  convention  shall  have  no  retroactive  effect,  and  consequently 
no  action  shall  be  taken  with  respect  to  differences  which  may  have 
arisen  before  its  conclusion,  unless  it  is  a  question  of  continuous  acts 
of  violence,  tending  to  establish  an  oppressive  system  for  all  the 
neutral  nations  of  Europe  in  general. 

Article  8 

If,  in  spite  of  the  most  scrupulous  care  on  the  part  of  the  two 
Powers  and  in  spite  of  the  observance  of  the  most  complete  neutrality 
by  them,  merchant  ships  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  or  of 
His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  should  be  insulted,  pillaged, 
or  taken  by  the  war-ships  or  privateers  of  either  of  the  Powers  at 
war,  then  the  Minister  of  the  injured  party  shall  make  representations 
to  the  Government  whose  war-ships  or  privateers  shall  have  committed 
such  acts,  demand  the  seized  merchant  ship,  and  insist  upon  suitable 
indemnification,  never  losing  sight  of  the  reparation  due  for  the  in- 
sult to  the  flag.  The  Minister  of  the  other  contracting  Party  shall 
join  with  him  and  support  his  complaints  in  the  most  energetic  and 
effectual  manner,  and  they  shall  thus  act  in  concert  and  in  perfect 
accord.  If  justice  should  be  refused  on  these  complaints,  or  if  the 
rendering  of  justice  shauld  be  postponed  from  time  to  time,  then 
Their  Majesties  shall  employ  reprisals  against  the  Power  so  refus- 
ing, and  they  shall  take  counsel  with  each  other  as  to  the  most  ef- 
fectual method  of  carrying  out  such  reprisals. 

Article  9 

If  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both  of  them,  because  of  or  in  con- 
tempt of  the  present  convention,  should  be  disturbed,  molested,  or  at- 
tacked, it  is  likewise  agreed  that  they  shall  make  common  cause  for 
their  mutual  defense  and  shall  work  and  act  in  concert  to  secure  full 
and  complete  satisfaction  both  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the 
losses  caused  to  their  subjects. 


536  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  10 

The  principles  and  the  measures  adopted  by  the  present  act  shall 
be  applicable  also  to  all  naval  wars,  which  may  unfortunately  arise  to 
disturb  Europe.  These  stipulations  shall  therefore  be  regarded  as 
permanent  and  shall  constitute  the  rule  for  the  contracting  Powers 
in  the  matter  of  commerce  and  navigation,  whenever  there  shall  be 
occasion  to  pass  upon  the  rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  11 

The  principal  aim  and  object  of  this  convention  being  to  ensure 
general  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  Sweden  and  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  agree  and 
bind  themselves  in  advance  to  permit  other  neutral  Powers  to  accede 
hereto,  and  that  by  adopting  the  principles  they  shall  share  the  obliga- 
tions as  well  as  the  advantages. 

Article  12 

In  order  that  the  Powers  at  war  may  not  allege  ignorance  of  the 
arrangements  concluded  between  their  said  Majesties,  they  agree  to 
bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  belligerent  parties  the  measures  which 
they  have  together  adopted,  which  are  all  the  less  hostile  because 
they  are  not  detrimental  to  any  other  country,  for  they  tend  solely  to 
protect  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 

Article  13 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting  Par- 
ties, and  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  in  good  and  due  form 
within  six  weeks,  or  sooner  if  possible,  from  the  day  on  which  it  is 
signed. 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
have  signed  and  hereto  affixed  the  seal  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  December  4/16,  1800. 

[L.  S.]   Court  Stedingk 
[L.  S.]  Count  de  Rostopsin 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  537 

Convention  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway  for  the  Re- 
establishment  of  an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  16,  1800^ 

In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Indivisible  Trinity. 

The  freedom  of  navigation  and  security  of  commerce  of  neutral 
Powers  having  been  compromised,  and  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations  having  been  disregarded  in  the  present  naval  war,  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Den- 
mark and  Norway,  led  by  their  love  of  justice  and  by  an  equal  solici- 
tude for  all  that  may  contribute  to  public  prosperity  in  their  States, 
have  deemed  it  advisable  to  give  a  new  sanction  to  the  principles  of 
neutrality,  which,  indestructible  in  their  essence,  require  only  the  co- 
operation of  the  Governments  interested  in  their  maintenance  to  make 
them  respected.  With  this  view  His  Imperial  Majesty  has  manifested, 
by  the  declaration  of  August  15^  to  the  Courts  of  the  north,  to  whose 
interests  likewise  it  is  to  adopt  uniform  measures  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances, how  greatly  he  has  at  heart  the  reestablishment,  in  all  its 
inviolability,  of  the  right  common  to  all  peoples  to  navigate  and  to 
carry  on  commerce  freely  and  independently  of  the  temporary  inter- 
ests of  belligerent  parties.  His  Danish  Majesty  shares  the  desires  and 
sentiments  of  his  august  ally,  and  a  happy  likeness  of  interests, 
strengthening  their  mutual  confidence,  has  determined  them  to  reestab- 
lish the  system  of  armed  neutrality,  which  was  followed  with  such 
success  during  the  last  American  war,  by  renewing  its  beneficent  max- 
ims in  a  new  convention  adapted  to  present  circumstances. 

To  this  end.  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  have  appointed  as  their 
plenipotentiaries,  to  wit:  His  Imperial  Majesty,  Count  Theodore  de 
Rostopsin,  His  Privy  Councilor,  Member  of  His  Council,  Principal 
Minister  in  the  College  of  Foreign  AfiFairs,  Postmaster  General  of 
the  Empire,  Grand  Chancellor  and  Grand  Cross  of  the  Sovereign  Or- 
der of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  Chevalier  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Andrew, 
of  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and  of  St.  Anne  of  the  First  Class,  of  the 
Orders  of  St.  Lazare,  of  the  Annunciation,  of  SS.  Maurice  and  Lazare, 
of  St.  Ferdinand  and  St.  Hubert;  and  His  Danish  Majesty,  Niels  de 
Rosenkrantz,  His  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  his  Chamberlain  and 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  677. 
^August  27,  1800,  new  style.     Ante,  p.  4S9. 


538  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

General  Aide-de-Camp ;  who,  after  having  exchanged  their  respective 
full  powers,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  declare  their  desire  to  see  to  the  strict- 
est enforcement  of  the  prohibition  of  commerce  in  contraband  on  the 
part  of  their  subjects  with  any  of  the  Powers  whatsoever  now  at  war 
or  that  may  hereafter  enter  into  the  war. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  any  ambiguity  and  any  misunderstanding  regarding  what 
should  be  considered  contraband,  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  declare 
that  they  recognize  as  such  only  the  following  articles,  to  wit:  can- 
non, mortars,  firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets,  balls,  guns, 
gun-fiints,  fuses,  powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur,  breastplates,  pikes,  swords, 
swordbelts,  cartridge-boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  except  such  quanti- 
ties thereof  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  defense  of  the  vessel  and 
of  those  composing  its  crew ;  and  all  other  articles  whatsoever  not 
here  enumerated  shall  not  be  considered  war  or  naval  munitions,  nor 
shall  they  be  subject  to  confiscation,  and  consequently  they  shall  pass 
freely  and  shall  not  be  subjected  to  the  slightest  difficulties.  It  is 
also  agreed  that  the  present  article  shall  in  no  way  impair  the  special 
provisions  of  previous  treaties  with  the  belligerent  parties,  by  which 
articles  of  a  similar  nature  may  have  been  reserved,  prohibited,  or 
permitted. 

Article  3 

All  that  is  to  be  considered  contraband  having  thus  been  determined 
and  excluded  from  the  commerce  of  neutral  nations,  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  preceding  article,  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all 
the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  in- 
tend and  desire  that  all  other  trade  shall  be  and  remain  absolutely  free. 
In  order  to  safeguard  adequately  the  general  principles  of  the  natural 
law,  of  which  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  the 
rights  of  neutral  peoples,  is  a  direct  consequence.  Their  Majesties 
have  resolved  to  leave  them  no  longer  at  the  mercy  of  an  arbitrary 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  539 

interpretation  that  may  be  influenced  by  isolated  and  temporary  in- 
terests.    To  this  end  they  have  agreed: 

( 1 )  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band merchandise. 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  none  shall 
be  considered  such  except  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  shall 
have  disposed  and  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  to  render 
access  thereto  clearly  dangerous,  and  that  no  vessel  sailing  toward  a 
blockaded  port  shall  be  considered  as  having  contravened  the  present 
convention,  unless,  after  having  been  notified  by  the  commanding 
officer  of  the  blockading  fleet  of  the  condition  of  the  port,  it  shall  at- 
tempt, eitlier  by  force  or  by  ruse,  to  enter  therein. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  not  be  arrested  except  for  just  cause 
and  for  self-evident  acts ;  that  their  cases  shall  be  tried  without  delay ; 
that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and 
that  in  every  instance,  in  addition  to  the  indemnities  granted  to  those 
who  have  suffered  loss,  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  be  given  for  the  insult  to  the  flag  of  Their  Majesties. 

(5)  That  the  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  vessel 
or  vessels  of  the  imperial  or  royal  navy,  which  accompanies  the 
convoy  of  one  or  more  merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  carries  no  con- 
traband merchandise,  must  be  considered  sufficient,  and  that  thereupon 
there  shall  be  no  occasion  to  visit  either  his  vessel  or  those  of  his 
convoy. 

The  better  to  ensure  to  these  principles  the  respect  due  to  stipula- 
tions dictated  by  a  disinterested  desire  to  maintain  the  inalienable 
rights  of  neutral  nations,  and  to  give  further  proof  of  their  devotion 
to  and  love  of  justice,  the  high  contracting  Powers  hereby  bind  them- 
selves most  solemnly  to  issue  new  and  strict  orders  forbidding  their 
captains,  whether  of  ships  of  the  line  or  of  merchant  ships,  to  load, 
hold,  or  conceal  on  board  any  articles  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  pres- 
ent convention,  might  be  considered  contraband,  and  to  see,  respect- 
ively, to  the  execution  of  the  orders  that  they  shall  have  published  in 
their  admiralties  and  wherever  else  it  may  be  necessary,  with  a  view 
to  which  the  ordinance,  which  shall  renew  this  prohibition  under  the 


540  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

severest  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the  end  of  the  present  act/  in 
order  that  there  may  be  no  allegation  of  ignorance  thereof. 

Article  4 

To  protect  in  common  the  commerce  of  their  subjects  on  the  basis 
of  the  principles  hereinbefore  laid  down,  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all 
the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  have 
seen  fit  to  equip  separately  a  number  of  war-ships  and  frigates  propor- 
tional to  this  object,  as  the  squadrons  of  each  Power  will  have  to  take 
their  station  and  be  used  for  such  convoying  as  its  commerce  and 
its  navigation  may  require,  in  conformity  with  the  nature  and  the 
quality  of  the  trade  of  each  nation. 

Article  5 

To  prevent  the  annoyances  that  may  arise  as  the  result  of  the  bad 
faith  of  those  who  make  use  of  the  flag  of  a  nation  to  which  they  do 
not  belong,  it  is  agreed  to  lay  down  as  an  inviolable  rule  that,  for  a 
vessel  to  be  considered  as  the  property  of  the  country  whose  flag 
it  flies,  its  captain  and  half  of  its  crew  must  belong  to  that  country, 
and  it  must  have  on  board  papers  and  passports  in  good  and  due 
form ;  but  any  vessel  that  shall  not  observe  this  rule  and  that  shall 
contravene  the  published  ordinances  to  this  effect,  printed  at  the  end 
of  the  present  convention,  shall  lose  all  right  to  the  protection  of  the 
contracting  Powers,  and  the  Government  to  which  it  belongs  shall 
bear  alone  the  losses,  damages,  and  annoyances  that  may  result  there- 
from. 

Article  6 

If  it  should  happen,  however,  that  the  merchant  ships  of  either  of 
the  Powers  should  be  in  waters  where  the  war-ships  of  the  same  nation 
are  not  stationed  and  where  they  could  not  have  recourse  to  their 
own  convoys,  then  the  commanding  officer  of  the  war-ships  of  the 
other  Power  must,  if  requested,  give  them  sincerely  and  in  good 
faith  the  assistance  that  they  may  need,  and  in  such  case,  the  war- 
ships and  frigates  of  either  of  the  Powers  shall  act  as  a  support  and 
protection  to  the  merchant  ships  of  the  other;  it  being  understood, 
however,  that  those  asking  such  aid  shall  not  have  engaged  in  any 
commerce  that  is  illicit  or  contrary  to  the  principles  of  neutrality. 


ipor  the  regulations  as  published  by  the  King  of  Sweden,  see  post,  p.  549. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  541 

Article  7 

This  convention  shall  have  no  retroactive  effect,  and  consequently  no 
action  shall  be  taken  with  respect  to  differences  which  may  have  arisen 
before  its  conclusion,  unless  it  is  a  question  of  continuous  acts  of  vio- 
lence, tending  to  establish  an  oppressive  system  for  all  the  neutral 
nations  of  Europe  in  general. 

Article  8 

If,  in  spite  of  the  most  scrupulous  care  on  the  part  of  the  two  Powers 
and  in  spite  of  the  observance  of  the  most  complete  neutrality  by  them, 
merchant  ships  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  or  of  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  should  be  insulted,  pillaged, 
or  taken  by  the  war-ships  or  privateers  of  any  of  the  Powers  at  war, 
then  the  Minister  of  the  injured  party  shall  make  representations  to 
the  Government  whose  war-ships  or  privateers  shall  have  committed 
such  acts,  demand  the  seized  ship,  and  insist  upon  suitable  indem- 
nification, never  losing  sight  of  the  reparation  due  for  the  insult  to 
the  flag.  The  Minister  of  the  other  contracting  Party  shall  join  with 
him  and  support  his  complaints  in  the  most  energetic  and  effectual 
manner,  and  they  shall  thus  act  in  concert  and  in  perfect  accord.  If 
justice  should  be  refused  on  these  complaints,  or  if  the  rendering  of 
justice  should  be  postponed  from  time  to  time,  then  Their  Majesties 
shall  employ  reprisals  against  the  Power  so  refusing,  and  they  shall 
take  counsel  with  each  other  as  to  the  most  effectual  method  of  carry- 
ing out  such  reprisals. 

Article  9 

If  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both  of  them,  because  of  or  in  con- 
tempt of  the  present  convention,  should  be  disturbed,  molested,  or  at- 
tacked, it  is  likewise  agreed  that  they  shall  make  common  cause  for 
their  mutual  defense  and  shall  work  and  act  in  concert  to  secure  full 
and  complete  satisfaction  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the  losses 
caused  to  their  subjects. 

Article  10 

The  principles  and  the  measures  adopted  by  the  present  act  shall 
be  applicable  also  to  all  naval  wars,  which  may  unfortunately  arise  to 
disturb  Europe.  These  stipulations  shall  therefore  be  regarded  as  per- 
manent and  shall   constitute  the  rule  for  the  contracting  Powers   in 


542  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the   matter   of   commerce   and   navigation,    whenever  there   shall   be 
occasion  to  pass  upon  the  rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  11 

The  principal  aim  and  object  of  this  convention  being  to  ensure 
general  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  His  Imperial  Majesty 
of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway 
agree  and  bind  themselves  in  advance  to  permit  other  neutral  Powers 
to  accede  hereto,  and  that  by  adopting  the  principles  they  shall  share 
the  obligations  as  well  as  the  advantages  hereof. 

Article  12 

In  order  that  the  Powers  at  war  may  not  allege  ignorance  of  the 
arrangements  concluded  between  Their  said  Majesties,  they  agree  to 
bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  belligerent  parties  the  measures  which 
they  have  together  adopted,  which  are  all  the  less  hostile  because  they 
are  not  detrimental  to  any  other  country,  for  they  tend  solely  to  pro- 
tect the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 

Article  13 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting  Par- 
ties, and  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  in  good  and  due  form 
within  six  weeks,  or  sooner  if  possible,  from  the  day  on  which  it  is 
signed. 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
have  signed  and  hereto  affixed  the  seal  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  December  4/16,  1800. 

[L.  S.]   Niels    de    Rosenkrantz 
[L.  S.]   Count  de  Rostopsin 

Separate  and  Secret  Articles 
Article  1 

In  order  to  give  all  possible  weight  and  stability  to  the  system  of 
armed  neutrality,  Their  Majesties  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway 
and  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  agree  to  send  to  sea  in  the  spring, 
as  soon  as  the  season  will  permit,  a  considerable  number  of  their  war- 
ships, for  use  wherever  occasion  may  demand,  and  to  keep  them  there 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  543 

as  long  as  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  this  necessity  shall 
continue  to  exist.  His  Imperial  Majesty  shall  equip  for  this  purpose 
fifteen  ships  of  the  line  and  five  frigates,  and  His  Danish  Majesty 
eight  ships  of  the  line  and  two  frigates. 

Article  2 

Their  Majesties  mutually  bind  themselves,  however,  to  take  such 
measures  as  will  enable  them  to  increase  this  force  if  circumstances 
should  require,  or  if  there  should  be  occasion  to  fight  a  superior  enemy 
force  or  to  feel  apprehension  because  of  the  presence  of  such  a  force. 

Article  3 

Their  Majesties,  always  regarding  the  Baltic  as  a  closed  sea,  shall 
use  every  means  in  their  power  to  guarantee  its  navigation  and  coasts 
against  all  acts  of  hostility,  violence  and  molestation  of  every  kind. 

Article  4 

If  circumstances  should  render  it  necessary  for  the  war-ships  of  His 
Imperial  Majesty  to  pass  the  winter  in  the  ports  of  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way, His  Danish  Majesty  shall  make  all  necessary  arrangements,  in 
order  that  these  vessels  and  their  crews  may  receive  the  same  treatment 
as  his  own,  observing  the  stipulations  pertaining  thereto  contained  in 
Article  6. 

Article  5 

If  it  should  become  necessary  to  join  the  squadrons,  or  if  vessels 
belonging  to  the  two  sovereigns  should  be  together,  the  ranking  com- 
manding officer,  or  if  they  are  both  of  the  same  rank,  the  senior,  shall 
assume  command  of  the  united  vessels. 

Article  6 

When  they  set  sail,  the  war-ships  of  the  high  contracting  parties 
shall  be  provisioned  for  at  least  five  months. 

If  at  the  end  of  this  time  the  vessels  of  either  of  the  two  Powers 
should  be  in  the  ports  of  the  other,  they  shall  be  furnished,  at  their 
own  expense,  with  such  provisions  as  they  may  need. 

These  separate,  secret  articles  shall  be  considered  and  regarded  as 
forming  part  of  the  Convention  itself  and  shall  be  signed  and  ratified  in 
the  same  way. 


544  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Convention  betAveen  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  Reestablishment 
of  an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  18,  1800^ 

In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Indivisible  Trinity. 

The  freedom  of  navigation  and  security  of  commerce  of  neutral 
Powers  having  been  compromised,  and  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations  having  been  disregarded  in  the  present  naval  war,  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia, 
led  by  their  love  of  justice  and  by  an  equal  solicitude  for  all  that  may 
contribute  to  public  prosperity  in  their  States,  have  deemed  it  advisable 
to  give  a  new  sanction  to  the  principles  of  neutrality,  which,  indestruc- 
tible in  their  essence,  require  only  the  cooperation  of  the  Governments 
interested  in  their  maintenance  to  make  them  respected.  With  this  view. 
His  Imperial  Majesty  has  manifested,  by  the  declaration  of  August  15^ 
to  the  Courts  of  the  north,  to  whose  interests  likewise  it  is  to  adopt 
uniform  measures  under  similar  circumstances,  how  greatly  he  has 
at  heart  the  reestablishment,  in  all  its  inviolability,  of  the  right  common 
to  all  peoples  to  navigate  and  to  carry  on  commerce  freely  and  inde- 
pendently of  the  temporary  interests  of  belligerent  parties.  His  Prus- 
sian Majesty  shared  the  desires  and  sentiments  of  his  august  ally,  and 
a  happy  likeness  of  interests,  strengthening  their  mutual  confidence,  has 
determined  them  to  reestablish  the  system  of  armed  neutrality,  which 
was  followed  with  such  great  success  during  the  last  American  war, 
by  renewing  its  beneficent  maxims  in  a  new  convention  adapted  to 
present  circumstances. 

To  this  end.  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  have  appointed  as  their  plenipotentiaries, 
to  wit:  His  Imperial  Majesty,  Count  Theodore  de  Rostopsin,  his  Privy 
Councilor,  Member  of  his  Council,  Principal  Minister  of  the  College  of 
Foreign  AflFairs,  Postmaster  General  of  the  Empire,  Grand  Chancellor 
and  Grand  Cross  of  the  Sovereign  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jenisalem. 
Chevalier  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Andrew,  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and 
of  St.  Anne  of  the  First  Class,  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Lazare,  of  the 
Annunciation,  of  SS.  Maurice  and  Lazare,  of  St.  Ferdinand  and  St. 
Hubert ;  and  His  Prussian  Majesty,  Count  Spiridon  de  Lusi,  Lieutenant 
General  of  Infantry  of  his  Armies,  his  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias. 
Chevalier  of  the  Order  of  the  Red  Eagle  and  of  the  Order  of  Merit ; 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  p.  683. 
2August  27,  1800,  new  style.     Ante,  p.  489. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  545 

who,  having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  have  agreed  upon  the  fol- 
lowing articles: 

Article  1 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Prussia  declare  their  desire  to  see  to  the  strictest  en- 
forcement of  the  prohibition  of  commerce  in  contraband  on  the  part 
of  their  subjects  with  any  of  the  Powers  whatsoever  now  at  war  or 
that  may  hereafter  enter  into  the  war. 

Article  2 

To  avoid  any  ambiguity  and  any  misunderstanding  regarding  what 
should  be  considered  contraband,  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  declare  that  they  recc^- 
nize  as  such  only  the  following  articles,  to  wit :  cannon,  mortars,  fire- 
arms, pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets,  balls,  guns,  gun  flints,  fuses, 
powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur,  breastplates,  pikes,  swords,  swordbelts, 
cartridge-boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  except  such  quantities  thereof  as 
may  be  necessary  for  the  defense  of  the  vessel  and  of  those  composing 
its  crew;  and  all  other  articles  whatsoever  not  here  enumerated  shall 
not  be  considered  war  or  naval  munitions,  nor  shall  they  be  subject  to 
confiscation,  and  consequently  they  shall  pass  freely  and  shall  not  be 
subjected  to  the  slightest  difficulties.  It  is  also  agreed  that  the  present 
article  shall  in  no  way  impair  the  special  provisions  of  previous  treaties 
with  the  belligerent  parties,  by  which  articles  of  a  similar  nature  may 
have  been  reserved,  prohibited,  or  permitted. 

Article  3 

All  that  is  to  be  considered  contraband  having  thus  been  determined 
and  excluded  from  the  commerce  of  neutral  nations,  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  preceding  article.  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all 
the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  intend  and  desire 
that  all  other  trade  shall  be  and  remain  absolutely  free.  In  order  to 
safeguard  adequately  the  general  principles  of  the  natural  law,  of 
which  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  as  well  as  the  rights  of 
neutral  peoples,  is  a  direct  consequence,  Their  Majesties  have  resolved 
to  leave  them  no  longer  at  the  mercy  of  an  arbitrary  interpretation 
that  may  be  influenced  by  isolated  and  temporary  interests.  To  this 
end  they  have  agreed : 


546  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

(1)  That  all  vessels  may  navigate  freely  from  port  to  port  and 
along  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

(2)  That  the  effects  belonging  to  subjects  of  the  said  Powers  at  war 
shall  be  free  on  board  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band merchandise. 

(3)  That  to  determine  what  constitutes  a  blockaded  port,  none  shall 
be  considered  such  except  a  port  where  the  attacking  Power  shall 
have  disposed  and  stationed  its  vessels  sufficiently  near  to  render  ac- 
cess thereto  clearly  dangerous,  and  that  no  vessel  sailing  toward  a 
blockaded  port  shall  be  considered  as  having  contravened  the  present 
convention,  unless,  after  having  been  notified  by  the  commanding 
officer  of  the  blockading  fleet  of  the  condition  of  the  port,  it  shall 
attempt,  either  by  force  or  by  ruse,  to  enter  therein. 

(4)  That  neutral  vessels  may  not  be  arrested  except  for  just  cause 
and  for  self-evident  acts;  that  their  cases  shall  be  tried  without  delay; 
that  the  procedure  shall  always  be  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal ;  and 
that  in  every  instance,  in  addition  to  the  indemnities  granted  to  those 
who  have  suffered  loss,  without  having  been  at  fault,  complete  satis- 
faction shall  be  given  for  the  insult  to  the  flag  of  Thei/  Majesties. 

(5)  That  the  declaration  of  the  commanding  officer  of  the  vessel 
or  vessels  of  the  imperial  or  royal  navy,  which  accompanies  the  convoy 
of  one  or  more  merchant  ships,  that  his  convoy  carries  no  contraband 
merchandise,  must  be  considered  sufficient,  and  that  thereupon  there 
shall  be  no  occasion  to  visit  either  his  vessel  or  those  of  his  convoy. 

The  better  to  ensure  to  these  principles  the  respect  due  to  stipu- 
lations dictated  by  a  disinterested  desire  to  maintain  the  inalienable 
rights  of  neutral  nations,  and  to  give  further  proof  of  their  devotion 
to  and  love  of  justice,  the  high  contracting  Powers  hereby  bind  them- 
selves most  solemnly  to  issue  new  and  strict  orders  forbidding  their 
captains,  whether  of  ships  of  the  line  or  of  merchant  ships,  to  load, 
hold,  or  conceal  on  board  any  articles  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  pres- 
ent convention,  might  be  considered  contraband,  and  to  see,  respec- 
tively, to  the  execution  of  the  orders  that  they  shall  have  published 
in  their  admiralties  and  wherever  else  it  may  be  necessary,  with  a 
view  to  which  the  ordinance,  which  shall  renew  this  prohibition  under 
the  severest  penalties,  shall  be  printed  at  the  end  of  the  present  act,^  in 
order  that  there  may  be  no  allegation  of  ignorance  thereof. 


ipor  the  regulations  as  published  by  the  King  of  Sweden,  see  post,  p.  549. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  547 

Article  4^ 

In  return  for  this  accession  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the 
Russias  shall  see  to  it  that  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  Prussian 
subjects  enjoy  the  protection  of  his  fleets,  by  ordering  all  the  com- 
manding officers  of  his  squadrons  to  protect  and  to  defend  from 
insult  and  molestation  such  Prussian  merchant  ships  as  happen  to  be 
along  their  course,  as  those  of  a  Power  that  is  friendly,  allied  and 
strictly  observant  of  neutrality;  it  being  understood,  however,  that 
the  aforesaid  ships  shall  not  be  employed  in  any  commerce  that  is 
illicit  or  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  strictest  neutrality. 

The  same  protection  and  the  same  assistance  shall  be  given  to  the 
Prussian  flag  by  Danish  and  Swedish  war-ships,  and  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  binds  himself  to  cooperate,  if  neces- 
sary, in  the  arrangements  to  be  stipulated  to  this  effect  in  separated 
conventions,  to  be  concluded  as  a  consequence  of  the  present  act  be- 
tween the  Courts  of  Berlin,  of  Copenhagen,  and  of  Stockholm. 

Article  5 

This  convention  shall  have  no  retroactive  effect,  and  consequently 
no  action  shall  be  taken  with  respect  to  differences  which  may  have 
arisen  before  its  conclusion,  imless  it  is  a  question  of  continuous 
acts  of  violence,  tending  to  establish  an  oppressive  system  for  all  the 
neutral  nations  of  Europe  in  general. 

Article  6 
If,  in  spite  of  the  most  scrupulous  care  on  the  part  of  the  two 
Powers  and  in  spite  of  the  observance  of  the  most  complete  neutrality 
by  them,  merchant  ships  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias 
or  of  His  Prussian  Majesty  should  be  insulted,  pillaged,  or  taken 
by  the  war-ships  or  privateers  of  any  of  the  Powers  at  war,  then  the 
Minister  of  the  injured  party  shall  make  representations  to  the  Gov- 
ernment whose  war-ships  or  privateers  shall  have  committed  such 
acts,  demand  the  seized  ship,  and  insist  upon  suitable  indemnification, 
never  losing  sight  of  the  reparation  due  for  the  insult  to  the  flag. 

iThis  article  is  substituted  for  Articles  4,  5  and  6  of  the  conventions  with 
Sweden  and  Norway  (ante,  pp.  534,  540),  and  Article  5  of  those  treaties  appears 
herein  as  a  supplementary  article  (post,  p.  549). 


548  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

The  Minister  of  the  other  contracting  Party  shall  join  with  him  and 
support  his  complaints  in  the  most  energetic  and  effectual  manner,  and 
they  shall  thus  act  in  concert  and  in  perfect  accord.  If  justice  should 
be  refused  on  these  complaints,  or  if  the  rendering  of  justice  should 
be  postponed  from  time  to  time,  then  Their  Majesties  shall  employ  re- 
prisals against  the  Powers  so  refusing,  and  they  shall  take  counsel 
with  each  other  as  to  the  most  effectual  method  of  carrying  out  such 
reprisals. 

Article  7 

If  either  of  the  two  Powers  or  both  of  them,  because  of  or  in  con- 
tempt of  the  present  convention,  should  be  disturbed,  molested,  or 
attacked,  it  is  likewise  agreed  that  they  shall  make  common  cause  for 
their  mutual  defense  and  shall  work  and  act  in  concert  to  secure  full 
and  complete  satisfaction  for  the  insult  to  their  flag  and  for  the  losses 
caused  to  their  subjects. 

Article  8 

The  principles  and  the  measures  adopted  by  the  present  act  shall  be 
applicable  also  to  all  naval  wars,  which  may  unfortunately  arise  to 
disturb  Europe.  These  stipulations  shall  therefore  be  regarded  as  per- 
manent and  shall  constitute  the  rule  for  the  contracting  Powers  in 
the  matter  of  commerce  and  navigation,  whenever  there  shall  be  occa- 
sion to  pass  upon  the  rights  of  neutral  nations. 

Article  9 

The  principal  aim  and  object  of  this  convention  being  to  ensure 
general  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation,  His  Imperial  Majesty  of 
all  the  Russias  and  His  Prussian  Majesty  agree  and  bind  themselves 
in  advance  to  permit  other  neutral  Powers  to  accede  hereto,  and  that 
by  adopting  the  principles  they  shall  share  the  obligations  as  well  as 
the  advantages  hereof. 

Article  10 

In  order  that  the  Powers  at  war  may  not  allege  ignorance  of  the 
arrangements  concluded  between  Their  said  Majesties,  they  agree  to 
bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  belligerent  parties  the  measures  which 
they  have  together  adopted,  which  are  all  the  less  hostile  because  they 
are  not  detrimental  to  any  other  country,  for  they  tend  solely  to  pro- 
tect the  commerce  and  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  549 

Article  11 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting 
Parties,  and  ratifications  thereof  shall  be  exchanged  in  good  and  due 
form  within  six  weeks,  or  sooner  if  possible,  from  the  day  on  which 
it  is  signed. 

In  faith  whereof,  we,  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full  powers, 
)mve  signed  and  hereto  affixed  the  seal  of  our  arms. 
Done   at    St.    Petersburg,    December  6/18,    1800. 

[L.  S.]   Count  de  Rostopsin 
[I..  S.]   Spiridon  Count  de  Lusi 

SUPPLEMENT.\RY   ARTICLE 

To  prevent  the  annoyances  that  may  arise  as  the  result  of  the  bad 
faith  of  those  who  make  use  of  the  flag  of  a  nation  to  which  they  do 
not  belong,  it  is  agreed  to  lay  down  as  an  inviolable  rule  that,  for  a 
vessel  to  be  considered  as  the  property  of  the  country  whose  flag  it 
flies,  its  captain  and  half  of  its  crew  must  belong  to  that  country,  and 
it  must  have  on  board  papers  and  passports  in  good  and  due  form ;  but 
any  vessel  that  shall  not  observe  this  rule  and  that  shall  contravene  the 
published  ordinances  to  this  effect,  printed  at  the  end  of  the  present 
convention,^  shall  lose  all  right  to  the  protection  of  the  contracting 
Powers,  and  the  Government  to  which  it  belongs  shall  bear  alone  the 
losses,  damages,  and  annoyances  that  may  result  therefrom. 


Swredish  Marine  Regulations,  December  23,  1800- 

The  preamble  states  the  necessity  of  rendering  the  rights  of  com- 
merce clear  and  explicit.  For  this  efi'ect,  in  order  to  secure  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Government,  the  commerce  of  Sweden  must  observe  the 
following  requisites: 

1.  In  order  that  a  ship  be  entitled  to  be  considered  as  a  Swede,  she 


^For  the  regulations  as  published  by  the  King  of  Sweden,  see  infra. 

^Translation.  For  the  German  text,  see  Martens,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  281.  See 
also,  Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  206.  These  regulations  were  revised 
on  January  21,  1804,  post,  p.  629. 


550  THE  ARAIED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

must  be  built  in  Sweden,  or  the  provinces  under  her  dominion;  or 
shipwrecked  on  the  Swedish  coast,  and  there  sold ;  or  bought  in  a  for- 
eign country  by  a  legal  and  authentic  contract.  If  such  purchase  is 
made  in  a  country  threatened  with  war,  it  shall  be  considered  legal  if 
made  three  months  prior  to  its  actually  breaking  out.  Every  ship  pur- 
chased must  be  naturalized.  As  however  the  naturalization  of  ships 
bought  in  a  foreign  country,  and  afterwards  taken  by  a  cruiser  belong- 
ing to  any  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  may  frequently  produce  disagree- 
able explanations  in  the  sequel,  it  is  hereby  declared,  that  in  time  of 
war  ships  shall  not  be  allowed  to  be  naturalized  which  have  formerly 
been  the  property  of  the  belligerents  or  their  subjects :  nevertheless, 
with  the  exception  of  all  ships  that  were  naturalized  before  the  present 
regulation  was  adopted,  which  shall  enjoy  all  the  rights  which  are  con- 
nected with  the  character  of  neutrals  and  Swedes. 

2.  The  captain  of  the  ship  must  be  provided  with  all  papers  requi- 
site and  proper  for  the  security  of  his  voyage.  Of  this  kind  are  (in 
case  the  ship  goes  through  the  Sound),  a  certificate  of  the  place  where 
the  vessel  was  built,  an  invoice,  letters  showing  the  cargo  not  contra- 
band, Turkish  and  T>atin  passports,  a  certificate  by  the  magistrate  of 
the  place,  a  pass  for  the  crew,  a  copy  of  the  oath  of  the  owner;  a  char- 
ter-party with  the  subscription  of  the  freighter,  the  captain,  and  the 
person  freighting  the  vessel ;  a  manifest  with  the  like  subscriptions, 
containing  a  list  of  the  different  articles  of  the  lading,  and  the  condi- 
tions of  the  intended  voyage;  and  a  bill  of  health  ^^hen  the  same  is 
necessary.  If  the  voyage  is  merely  to  the  ports  of  the  Baltic  or  the 
Sound,  the  Turkish  and  Latin  passes  are  not  necessary :  but  the  cap- 
tains must  have  aid  the  other  papers  enumerated,  without  exception. 

3.  All  these  documents  must  be  made  out  and  delivered  in  a  Swed- 
ish port,  unless  when  a  ship  has  lost  her  papers  by  accident,  or  where 
they  have  been  forcibly  tal-cen  away,  in  which  case  these  documents 
may  be  renewed  in  a  foreign  port,  if  the  captain,  immediately  on  his 
arrival,  takes  the  precaution  to  exhibit  an  authentic  and  properly  cer- 
tified declaration,  by  which  the  accident  is  proved,  or  the  ground 
stated  on  which  he  desires  the  renewal. 

4.  The  captain  is  prohibited  to  have  false  acts  or  certificates,  or 
duplicates  thereof.  He  is  likewise  prohibited  to  maJce  use  of  a  for- 
eign flag. 

5.  It  is  required  that  the  captain  and  half  of  the  crew  shall  be 
Swedish  subjects. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  551 

6.  Captains  going  to  the  main  ocean  shall  be  bound  to  follow  the 
course  pointed  out  in  their  instructions,  and  agreeable  to  the  contents 
of  their  certification. 

7.  Ships  destined  for  the  ports  of  a  belligerent  Power  must,  with 
the  utmost  care,  and  under  the  severest  penalties,  avoid  carrying  any 
contraband  commodities.  To  prevent  all  doubt  or  misunderstanding 
respecting  what  is  contraband,  it  is  agreed  that  the  following  goods 
sihall  be  considered  contraband. 

8.  All  Swedish  subjects  are  prohibited  to  fit  out  privateers  against 
the  belligerents,  their  subjects  and  property. 

9.  A  Swedish  ship  can  not  be  employed  by  a  belligerent  Power  to 
transport  troops,  arms,  or  any  warlike  implements.  Should  any  captain 
be  compelled  to  do  so  by  superior  force,  he  is  bound  at  least  to  exhibit 
a  formal  protest  against  such  violence. 

10.  When  a  merchant  ship  is  not  under  convoy,  and  happens  to  be 
brought  to  by  a  ship  of  war  or  privateer  belonging  to  any  of  the  bel- 
ligerents, the  captain  shall  not,  in  that  case,  oppose  the  searching  of 
his  vessel,  but  be  bound  faithfully  to  show  all  acts  and  documents  which 
relate  to  her  cargo.  The  captain  and  his  people  are  strictly  prohibited 
to  keep  back  or  destroy  any  of  their  papers. 

11.  If,  hcnvever,  such  ship  makes  part  of  a  convoy,  the  foregoing 
article  shall  not  serve  as  the  rule ;  but  the  captain's  duty  consists  in 
punctually  obeying  the  signals  of  the  commodore  of  the  convoy,  for 
which  purpose  therefore  he  shall  separate  as  little  as  possible  from 
the  convoy. 

12.  All  captains  are  expressly  forbidden  to  attempt  going  into  a 
blockaded  port,  as  soon  as  they  are  formally  apprized  by  the  officer 
commanding  the  blockade.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  a  blockaded 
harbor  is,  this  appellation  is  confined  to  those  to  which,  by  the  exer- 
tions of  the  blockading  Power  witli  ships  destined  and  adequate  to 
the  object,  it  is  evidently  dangerous  to  attempt  panning  in. 

13.  In  case  a  Swedish  merchant  ship  is  captured  by  a  ship  of  war 
or  privateer  of  any  of  the  belligerents,  the  captain  shall  immediately 
transmit  a  circumstantial  account,  and  duly  explained,  to  the  Swedish 
consul  or  vice  consul  of  the  place  to  which  the  ship  is  taken ;  and 
should  there  be  no  consul  or  vice  consul  there,  he  shall  transmit  a 
memorial  to  the  Swedish  consul  of  the  district  to  which  the  place  into 
which  his  ship  is  taken  belongs. 


552  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

14.  Every  captain  of  a  Swedish  merchantman,  who  strictly  observes 
the  above  regulations  and  orders,  shall  enjoy  a  free  voyage,  protected 
by  the  laws  of  nations  and  the  provisions  of  treaties;  and  to  this  end 
all  public  agents  and  Swedish  consuls  are  required,  in  case  of  attack 
or  insult,  to  give  their  support  to  the  just  and  well-founded  com- 
plaints on  the  subject.  But  those  who,  in  any  point  whatever,  neglect 
or  violate  their  orders,  must  answer  for  the  consequences  of  their 
conduct,  without  relying  upon  the  protection  of  His  Majesty. 

15.  By  the  contents  of  a  recent  order.  His  Majesty  has  prohibited 
the  privateers  of  a  foreign  nation  to  enter  or  bring  their  prizes  into 
the  ports  of  his  kingdom,  except  in  case  of  their  being  driven  in  by 
stress  of  weather.  In  this  case  it  is  expressly  prohibited  to  all  what- 
soever to  buy  the  prizes,  or  any  of  the  effects  wliich  the  privateers 
have  taken. 

To  which  end  publication,  etc. 

Given  at  St.  Petersburg,  23d  December,  1800. 

GusTAvus  Adolphus 


Note  of  Mr.  Drummond,  British  Minister,  to  Count  Bernstorff, 
Danish  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  regarding  the 
Armed  Neutrality  League,  December  27,  1800^ 

The  Court  of  London,  informed  that  Denmark  is  carrying  on  with 
activity  negotiations  very  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  British  Empire, 
thinks  that  it  can  not  better  fulfil  the  duties  which  such  a  circum- 
stance prescribes,  than  by  addressing  itself  directly  to  the  Minister  of 
His  Danish  Majesty,  to  demand  from  him  a  frank  and  satisfactory 
explanation. 

In  all  the  Courts  of  Europe  they  speak  openly  of  a  confederacy  be- 
tween Denmark  and  some  other  Powers,  to  oppose  by  force  the  exer- 
cise of  those  principles  of  maritime  law  on  which  the  naval  power  of 
the  Britsh  Empire  in  a  great  measure  rests,  and  which  in  all  wars  have 
been  followed  by  the  maritime  States,  and  acknowledged  by  their  tri- 
bunals. 

His  Britannic  Majesty,  relying  with  confidence  upon  the  loyalty  of 
His  Danish  Majesty,  and  upon  the  faith  of  the  engagements  recently 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  210. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  553 

contracted  between  the  two  Courts,  has  not  demanded  from  him  any 
explanation  on  this  head.  It  was  his  wish  to  wait  for  the  moment 
when  the  Court  of  Denmark  should  think  it  its  duty  to  contradict 
those  reports,  so  injurious  to  its  good  faith,  and  so  Httle  compatible 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  good  understanding  which  had  been  re- 
established between  the  two  countries. 

At  present  the  conduct  and  the  public  declaration  of  one  of  the 
Poavers,  which  it  is  pretended  have  entered  into  this  confederacy,  do 
not  permit  His  Majesty  to  preserve  any  longer  towards  the  rest  the 
same  silence  which  he  has  hitherto  observed. 

The  undersigned  therefore  finds  himself  bound  to  demand  from  his 
Excellency  Count  de  Bernstorff,  a  plain,  open,  and  satisfactory  an- 
swer on  the  nature,  object,  and  extent  of  the  obligations  which  His 
Danish  Majesty  may  have  contracted,  or  the  negotiations  which  he  is 
carrying  on  with  respect  to  a  matter  which  so  nearly  concerns  the 
dignity  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  and  the  interests  of  his  people. 

His  Britannic  Majesty,  always  ready  to  return  all  the  marks  of 
friendship  which  he  may  receive  on  the  part  of  His  Danish  Majesty, 
hopes  to  find,  in  the  answer  of  the  Court  of  Copenhagen  to  this  re- 
quest, only  a  new  occasion  of  manifesting  these  dispositions. 

In  transmitting  this  note  to  M.  the  Secretary  of  State,  the  under- 
signed avails  himself,  with  pleasure,  of  this  opportunity  to  assure  him 
of  the  high  consideration  with  which  he  has  the  honor  to  be. 
His  very  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

W.  Drum  MONO 

To  his  Excellency  the  Count  de  Bernstorff, 

Secretary  of  State  of  His  Danish  Majesty,  etc.,  etc. 


Note  of  the  Spanish  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  Stockholm  to  the 
Swedish  Chancellor,  in  reply  to  His  Letter  concerning  British 
Violations  of  the  Swedish  Flag' 

Stockholm,  December  2p,   1800. 
Sir  :     I  have  this  moment  received  from  my  Court  an  answer  to  the 
dispatches,  in  which  I  communicated  the  first  steps  which  I  had  taken 

^Ibid.,  p.  209. 


554  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

with  His  Swedish  Majesty,  when  I  had  the  honor  to  present  my  first 
note  on  the  subject  of  the  outrage  of  which  the  Enghsh  were  guilty 
in  the  road  of  Barcelona. 

The  King,  my  master,  has  observed  with  regret  the  coldness  with 
which  the  Swedish  Court  has  received  the  complaint,  while  it  has 
confined  itself  to  ff-eble  and  indecisive  measures,  from  which  it  does 
not  even  indulge  the  hope  of  any  advantage.  This  view  of  the  mat- 
ter shows  the  small  interest  with  which  Sweden  is  prepared  to  act  in 
the  business.  I  can  not  conceal  from  you,  sir,  that  this  inactivity, 
which  is  observed  in  the  applications  of  the  Court  of  Sweden  to  that 
of  London,  might  afford  room  to  believe  that  this  negotiation  will  be 
connected  with  other  objects  of  private  interest  which  demand  tem- 
porizing measures,  incompatible  with  that  energy  and  zeal  which  His 
Catholic  Majesty  expected  to  see  displayed  by  His  Swedish  Majesty, 
in  regard  to  an  affair  which,  as  it  involves  the  honor  of  his  flag,  would 
have  afforded  him  an  occasion  to  prove  to  Europe  the  warm  part  he 
takes  in  the  interest  of  the  maritime  Powers,  as  well  as  to  testify  the 
value  he  puts  upon  the  good  understanding  which  hitherto  has  pre- 
vailed between  the  two  Courts.  In  pursuance  of  a  new  order  from 
n)y  Court,  I  repeat,  and  formally  insist  upon  what  I  demanded  in  my 
last  note  of  the  17th  October.  I  fondly  flatter  myself  that  His  Swed- 
ish Majesty  will  adopt  far  more  active  measures  than  the  contents  of 
your  note  allowed  me  to  hope.  It  is  not  probable  that  you  will  expose 
Swedish  ships  to  all  the  severity  of  the  measures  which  circumstances 
require  to  be  exercised  against  suspected  vessels,  and  whose  conduct 
might  be  considered  as  connived  at,  unless  the  Swedish  Court  receives 
from  England  the  most  ample  reparation  respecting  the  affair  of 
Barcelona. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  etc. 

The  Chevalier  de  Huerta 


Reply  of  Count  Bemstorff  to  Mr.  Drummond,  December  31,  1800^ 

The  undersigned   Secretary   of   State   for  Foreign  Affairs,  having 
given  an  account  to  the  King  his  master  of  the  contents  of  the  note 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  211. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  555 

which  Mr.  Drummond  has  done  him  the  honor  to  transmit  to  him  on 
the  27th  instant,  is  authorized  to  return  the  answer  which  follows : 

The  Court  of  London  must  have  received  very  incorrect  informa- 
tion, to  have  been  able  for  a  moment  to  presume  that  Denmark  had 
conceived  projects  hostile  against  it,  or  incompatible  with  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  g-ood  understanding  which  subsists  between  the  two 
Crowns ;  and  the  King  is  very  much  obliged  to  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
for  having  furnished  him  with  the  opportunity  of  contradicting,  in 
the  most  positive  manner,  reports  as  ill  founded,  as  contrary  to  his 
most  decided  sentiments.  < 

The  negotiation  which  is  carrying  on  at  St.  Petersburg,  between 
Russia,  Prussia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark,  has  no  other  object  than  the 
renewal  of  the  engagements  which,  in  the  years  1780  and  1781,  were 
contracted  by  the  same  Powers  for  the  safety  of  their  navigation,  and 
of  which  a  communication  was  at  that  time  made  to  all  the  Courts  of 
Europe. 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  having  proposed  to  the  Powers 
of  the  north  to  reestablish  these  engagements  in  their  original  form, 
Denmark  has  so  much  the  less  hesitated  to  consent  to  it,  as,  far  from 
having  ever  abandoned  the  principles  professed  in  1780,  she  has 
thought  it  her  duty  to  maintain  them,  and  claim  them  upon  all  occa- 
sions, and  not  allow  herself  to  admit  in  respect  of  them  any  other 
modifications  than  those  which  result  from  her  treaties  with  the  bel- 
ligerent Pov/ers. 

Very  far  from  wishing  to  interrupt  those  Powers  in  the  exercise  of 
rights  which  the  war  gives  them,  Denmark  introduces  into  the  negotia- 
tion with  her  allies  none  but  views  absolutely  defensive,  pacific,  and 
incapable  of  giving  oftense  or  provocation  to  any  one.  The  engage- 
ments she  will  make  will  be  foimded  upon  the  strictest  fulfilment  of 
the  duties  of  neutrality,  and  of  the  obligations  which  her  treaties  im- 
pose upon  her ;  and  if  she  wishes  to  shelter  her  innocent  navigation 
from  the  manifest  abuses  and  violence  which  the  maritime  war  pro- 
duces but  too  easily,  she  thinks  she  pays  respect  to  the  belligerent 
Powers  by  supposing,  that,  far  from  wishing  to  authorize  or  tolerate 
those  abuses,  they  would,  on  their  side,  adopt  measures  best  calculated 
to  prevent  or  repress  them. 

Denmark  has  not  made  a  niysterv  to  any  one  of  the  object  of  her 
negotiation,  upon  the  nature  of  which  some  suspicion  has  been  infused 
into  the  Court  of  London ;  but  she  has  not  thought  that  she  departed 


556  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

from  the  usual  forms,  in  wishing  to  wait  the  definitive  result  of  it,  in 
order  to  communicate  an  official  account  of  it  to  the  Powers  at  war. 

The  undersigned,  not  knowing  that  any  of  the  Powers  engaged  in 
this  negotiation  has  made  a  declaration,  or  adopted  measures  relative 
to  its  object,  at  which  Great  Britain  might  take  offense  or  umbrage, 
can  not  without  ulterior  explanation  reply  to  this  point  of  Mr.  Drum- 
mond's  note. 

Much  less  does  he  conceive  in  what  respect  the  engagement  taken 
by  the  previous  convention  of  the  29th  of  August  last  can  be  consid- 
ered as  contrary  to  those  which  Denmark  is  about  to  enter  into  with 
the  neutral  and  united  Powers  of  the  north ;  and  in  all  cases  in  which 
he  shall  find  himself  called  upon  to  combat  or  remove  the  doubts  that 
shall  have  been  conceived  with  respect  to  the  good  faith  of  the  King, 
he  shall  consider  his  task  to  be  very  easy,  as  long  as  this  good  faith 
shall  be  introduced  into  the  reproaches  or  suspicions  advanced  against 
His  Majesty.  He  flatters  himsdf  that  the  English  Government,  after 
having  received  the  required  explanations,  will  have  the  frankness  to 
allow  that  the  provisional  and  momentary  abandonment,  not  of  a  prin- 
ciple, the  question  with  respect  to  which  remained  undecided,  but  of 
a  measure,  whose  right  has  never  been,  nor  ever  can  be,  contested, 
can  not  be  found  at  all  in  opposition  to  the  general  and  permanent 
principles,  relative  to  which  the  Powers  of  the  north  are  upon  the 
point  of  establishing  a  cooperation,  which,  so  far  from  being  calcu- 
lated to  compromise  their  neutrality,  is  destined  only  to  strengthen  it. 

The  undersigned  would  fain  believe  that  these  explanations  will  ap- 
pear satisfactory  to  the  Court  of  London ;  and  that  the  latter  will  do 
justice  to  the  intentions  and  sentiments  of  the  King,  and  particularly 
to  His  Majesty's  invariable  desire  to  maintain  and  cement,  by  all 
means  in  his  power,  the  friendship  and  good  understanding  which 
subsists  between  Denmark  and  Great  Britain. 

He  has  the  honor  to  offer  to  Mr.  Dmmmond  the  assurance  of  his 
most  distinguished  consideration. 

Bernstokff 

Copenhagen,  December  j/,  i8oo. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  557 

British  Instructions  to  Lieutenant  General  Trigge  regarding  His 
Majesty's  Forces  in  the  Leeward  Islands,  January  14,  180r 

Sir:  Infonnation  having  reached  this  country  which  leaves  no 
doubt,  that  the  Courts  of  Copenhagen,  Stockholm  and  Petersburg  have 
agreed  to  revive  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality  of  the  year 
1780  and  that  extensive  armaments  are  now  preparing  in  the  ports  of 
the  above-mentioned  Powers,  with  the  intention  of  supporting  these 
principles  and  consequently  of  resisting  by  open  violence  the  maritime 
rights  of  this  country,  as  established  by  the  law  of  nations,  by  the 
positive  stipulations  of  treaties  and  by  the  usage  of  former  wars,  His 
Majesty  has  resolved  to  adopt  such  measures  as  a  conduct  so  hostile 
to  the  just  and  ancient  privileges  of  the  British  flag,  calls  for  on  his 
part,  for  the  maintenance  and  preservation  of  the  best  interests  of  his 
people;  and  to  employ  every  possible  means,  as  well  to  obtain  in- 
demnity and  reparation  for  the  injury  done  to  the  property  of  His 
Majesty's  subjects,  in  violation  of  the  most  solemn  treaties,  by  the 
Power  which  has  taken  the  lead  in  this  confederacy,  as  to  deprive 
the  Courts  of  Denmark  and  Sweden  (whose  conduct  has  obliged  him 
reluctantly  to  the  resources  they  may  expect  to  derive  from  their  col- 
onies and  trade  for  entering  upon,  or  carrying  on  a  contest,  which  as 
soon  as  the  season  will  admit  of  naval  operations  in  the  Baltic,  it  will 
not  be  in  His  Majesty's  power  to  avoid,  unless  they  shall  in  the  in- 
terval be  induced  by  this  timely  act  of  vigor  and  justifiable  precaution 
to  relinquish  the  system,  to  which  they  are  actually  engaged,  and  to 
give  His  Majesty  such  security  as  the  case  may  appear  to  require, 
against  the  renewal  of  similar  pretensions  on  their  part. 

In  pursuance  of  this  principle  I  am  commanded  to  signify  to  you 
His  Majesty's  pleasure  that  immediately  on  the  receipt  of  these  in- 
structions you  are,  in  concert  with  the  officer  commanding  Plis  Maj- 
esty's naval  forces  on  the  Leeward  Island  station  to  make  every 
necessary  preparation  for  proceeding  in  His  Majesty's  name  to  seize 
upon  and  take  possession  of  the  Islands  of  St.  Thomas,  St.  Croix  and 
St.  John  and  the  Swedish  Island  of  St.  Bartholomew,  together  with 
all  ships,  stores,  or  public  property  of  any  description,  belonging  to 
Russia,  Denmark  or  Sweden,  which  may  be  found  in  the  said 
Islands.     .     . 


iTliorvald   Boye,  Dc   Varbncde  Ncuiralitetsforbund,  p.  357. 


558  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Additional  Instructions  to  Lieutenant  General  Trigge,  January  14, 

180P 

Sir:  In  addition  to  the  instructions  contained  in  my  letter  of  this 
day's  date  I  have  to  inform  you  that  His  Majesty  from  his  anxiety 
to  avoid  coming  to  open  war  with  Denmark  and  Sweden  is  still 
willing  to  entertain  a  hope,  that  the  display  of  the  vigorous  and  de- 
cided measures  he  is  compelled  to  adopt  against  their  trade  and  col- 
onies may  still  induce  them  to  relinquish  their  present  engagements 
with  Russia  and  to  give  such  security  as  His  Majesty  may  deem 
necessary  for  their  observance  of  a  system  of  neutrality  consistent 
with  the  maritime  rights  of  this  country.  Under  these  circumstances 
and  until  the  effect  upon  the  Courts  of  Copenhagen  and  Stockhokn  of 
the  measures  His  Majesty  has  ordered  to  be  taken,  can  be  ascertained, 
whatever  appearance  of  existing  hostility  these  measures  may  assume. 
His  Majesty  is  disposed  to  consider  them  rather  as  steps  of  just  and 
necessary  precaution,  and  with  a  view  to  indemnify  his  own  subjects 
for  the  injury  they  have  sustained  by  the  confederacy  to  which  these 
Powers  are  a  party,  than  as  arising  out  of  an  actual  state  of  war. 

This  being  the  case  you  are  not  to  consider  any  property  or  other 
articles  liable  to  seizure,  and  w^hich  in  such  cases  have  usually  fallen 
to  the  share  of  the  captors  as  acquired  to  them  for  their  advantage 
His  Majesty  reserving  to  himself  to  determine  hereafter  respecting 
the  disposal  of  such  property  and  to  what  amount  an  appropriation 
may  be  proper  for  the  reward  of  the  captors,  and  with  this  view  you 
will  cause  all  articles  and  effects  coming  under  this  description  to  be 
deposited  in  proper  places  of  safety  until  His  Majesty's  pleasure  shall 
be  known  or  to  be  sent  to  this  country  on  board  the  ships  in  which 
they  may  be  seized  as  the  nature  of  the  cargo  or  stores  may  appear  to 
require.  CP.   R.   O.) 


British  Order  of  Council  laying  an  Embargo  on  Russian,  Danish, 
and  Swedish  Ships,  January  14,  1801- 

At  the  Court  of  St.  James's,  the  i  fth  January  iS'oi;  present,  the  King's 
Most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 
Whereas  His  Majesty  has  received  advice,  that  a  large  number  of 


^Thorvald  Boye,  op.   cit.,  p.  358 
-Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  217. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  559 

vessels  belonging  to  His  Majesty's  subjects  have  been  and  are  detained 
in  the  ports  of  Russia,  and  that  the  British  sailors  navigating  the 
same,  have  been  and  now  are  detained,  as  prisoners,  in  different  parts 
of  Russia;  and  also,  tha,t,  during  the  continuance  of  these  proceedings, 
a  confederacy  of  a  hostile  nature,  against  the  just  rights  and  interest 
of  His  Majesty,  and  his  dominions,  has  been  entered  into  with  the 
Court  of  St  Petersburg  by  the  Courts  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  re- 
spectively; His  Majesty,  with  the  advice  of  his  Privy  Council,  is 
thereupon  pleased  to  order,  as  it  is  hereby  ordered,  that  no  ships  or 
vessels  belonging  to  any  of  His  Majesty's  subjects  be  permitted  to 
enter  and  clear  out  for  any  of  the  ports  of  Russia,  Denmark,  or  Swe- 
den, until  further  order;  and  His  Majesty  is  further  pleased  to  order, 
that  a  general  embargo  or  stop  be  made  of  all  Russian,  Danish,  and 
Swedish  ships  and  vessels  whatsoever  now  within,  or  which  hereafter 
shall  come  into  any  of  the  ports,  harbors,  or  roads  within  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  together  with  all  persons  and 
effects  on  board  the  said  ships  and  vessels ;  but  that  the  utmost  care 
be  taken  for  the  preservation  of  all  and  every  part  of  the  cargoes  on 
board  any  of  the  said  ships  or  vessels,  so  that  no  damage  or  embezzle- 
ment whatever  be  sustained. 

And  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  His  Majesty's 
Treasury,  and  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  the  Admiralty,  and  the 
Lord  W^arden  of  the  Cinque  Ports,  are  to  give  the  necessary'  directions 
herein  as  to  them  may  respectively  appertain. 

W.  Faw^kener 


Notification  of  Lord  Granville,  British  Secretary  of  State  for  For- 
eign Affairs,  to  the  Danish  and  Sv^^edish  Ambassadors  regard- 
ing the  Embargo  on  Danish  and  Swedish  Ships,  January  15, 
180P 

The  undersigned,  principal  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
has  been  commanded  by  His  Majesty  to  make  the  following  communi- 
cation to  Count  von  Wedsl-Jarlsberg,  and  Baron  von  Ehrensward, 
Danish  and  Swedish  Envoys  at  this  Court. 

^Ibid.,  p.  218. 


560  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

His  Majesty  has  heard  with  the  sincerest  concern,  that  at  the  mo- 
ment when  the  Court  of  Petersburg  had  adopted  the  most  hostile 
measures  against  the  persons  and  property  of  His  Majesty's  subjects, 
the  two  Courts  of  Copenhagen  and  Stockholm  had  concluded  a  con- 
vention with  that  Power  for  the  maintenance  of  a  naval  armed  con- 
federacy in  the  north  of  Europe.  If  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  convention  alluded  to  was  negotiated  and  concluded,  could  have 
left  any  doubt  in  His  Majesty's  mind  respecting  the  objects  to  which 
it  is  directed,  that  doubt  would,  by  the  declarations  of  the  Court  of 
Petersburg,  and  still  farther  by  the  recent  and  official  declarations  ol 
the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  have  been  completely  removed.  It  is  suffi- 
ciently known  with  what  hostile  intentions  an  attempt  was  made,  in 
the  year  1780,  to  introduce  a  new  code  of  public  law  against  Great 
Britain,  and  to  support  by  force  a  system  of  innovation  prejudicial  to 
the  dearest  rights  of  the  British  Empire.  But  His  Majesty  has  hith- 
erto had  the  satisfaction  to  see  that  those  arbitrary  and  injurious 
measures  have  been  completely  given  up.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
present  war,  the  Court  of  Petersburg,  which  had  taken  a  most  active 
part  in  the  establishment  of  the  former  alliance,  entered  into  articles 
with  His  Majesty,  which  are  not  merely  incompatible  with  the  con- 
vention of  1780,  but  which  are  directly  in  the  face  of  it;  engagements 
which  are  still  in  force,  and  the  reciprocal  execution  of  which  His 
Majesty  is  entitled  to  demand  upon  even,-  principle  of  good  faith,  dur- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  war.  The  conduct  of  His  Majesty  towards 
the  other  Powers  of  the  Baltic,  and  all  the  decisions  of  his  courts  of 
justice  in  regard  to  prizes,  have  been  uniformly,  and  notoriously, 
founded  upon  those  principles  which  previously  to  the  year  1780  had 
guided  all  other  European  courts  of  admiralty.  Nor  had  the  intention 
to  renew  the  former  confederacy  been  communicated  to  His  Majesty 
on  the  part  of  any  of  the  contracting  Powers,  till  he  received  informa- 
tion of  the  actual  signing  of  the  convention,  and  had  been  apprized 
by  the  declaration  of  one  of  the  parties,  that  the  object  of  it  was  to 
confirm  the  stipulations  entered  into  in  the  years  1780  and  1781,  in 
their  original  shape.  No  further  doubts  therefore  can  remain,  that 
the  object  of  their  confederacy,  and  the  naval  preparations,  which  the 
contracting  Parties  pursue  with  vigor,  is  nothing  less  than  to  place 
themselves  in  a  situation  to  maintain  by  force,  pretensions  which  are 
so  obviously  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  justice,  that  those 
Powers,  which,  when  neutral,  brought  them  forward,  were  the  first 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  561 

to  oppose  them  when  they  became  belligerent,  and  the  estabUshment 
of  which,  if  it  should  be  effected,  would  be  one  of  the  principal  means 
of  overthrowing  the  strength  and  security  of  the  British  Empire.  On 
the  knowledge  of  these  circumstances.  His  Majesty  the  King  would 
act  contrary  to  the  interest  of  his  people,  the  dignity  of  his  crown,  and 
the  honor  of  his  flag  (which  by  the  discipline,  courage,  and  skill  of 
his  navy,  has  risen  to  so  extraordinary  a  pitch  of  greatness),  were  he 
to  delay  the  adoption  of  the  most  effectual  measures  to  repel  the  at- 
tack he  has  already  experienced,  and  to  oppose  the  hostile  effects  of 
the  confederacy  armed  against  him.  His  Majest}'  has  therefore  au- 
thorized the  undersigned  officially  to  communicate  to  Count  Wedel- 
Tarlsberg  and  Baron  von  Ehrensward,  that  an  embargo  has  been  laid 
rpon  all  the  Danish  and  Swedish  ships  in  the  ports  belonging  to  His 
Majesty.  But  in  the  execution  of  this  measure  His  Majesty  will 
take  care  that  no  violent  or  severe  proceedings  shall  be  exercised  on 
the  part  of  His  Majesty  towards  innocent  individuals.  His  Majesty 
is  still  animated  by  the  most  anxious  desire  that  the  circumstances 
which  have  rendered  these  steps  necessary  may  cease,  and  that  he  may 
be  enabled  to  return  to  those  relations  v/ith  the  Courts  of  Stockholm 
and  Copenhagen,  which  existed  between  them,  till  that  mutual  good- 
understanding  was  interrupted  bv  the  present  attempts  to  renew  for- 
mer pretensions. 

Grenville 


Reply  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg,  Danish  Envoy  Extraordinary  at 
London,  to  the  Notification  of  Lord  Grenville  regarding  the 
Embargo  on  Danish  and  Swedish  Ships,  January  16,  180P 

The  undersigned,  Envoy  Extraordinary  from  His  Danish  Majesty, 
will  transmit  this  day  with  regret  to  his  Court  the  official  communica- 
tion he  had  the  honor  to  receive  yesterday  from  Eord  Grenville,  upon 
the  subject  of  the  embargo  laid  upon  the  Danish  vessels  in  the  British 
ports. 

While  he  waits  until  the  orders  of  the  King  his  master,  relative  to 
this  offensive  measure,  arrive,  we  can  not  avoid  protesting  against  the 


^Collection  of  State  Pat>ers,  vol.   11,  p.  220. 


562  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

validity  of  the  motives  alleged  in  the  said  note,  and  against  the  justice 
of  the  consequences,  which  the  British  Government  has  conceived  it 
could  accredit  against  the  Court  of  Copenhagen. 

A  difference  which  arose  bet^veen  the  Courts  of  Petersburg  and 
London  during  the  negotiation,  destined  solely  to  the  protection  of  a 
perfect  neutrality  in  the  north,  has  no  relation  whatever  with  that; 
and  as  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  has  caused  to  be  pub- 
lished a  formal  declaration  on  the  subject  of  the  motives  of  the  meas- 
ures adopted  on  his  part,  Denmark  finds  in  it  a  complete  refutation  of 
the  argument  advanced  by  the  British  Minister. 

With  respect  to  the  principles  of  the  northern  Powers  respecting  the 
sacred  rights  of  neutrality,  they  have  not  been  abandoned.  Russia,  in 
her  belligerent  quality,  has  only  suspended  the  application,  and  Den- 
mark and  Sweden  have,  by  their  convention  of  the  27th  March  1794^ 
(officially  communicated  to  all  the  belligerent  Powers),  declared,  in 
the  face  of  all  Europe,  that  their  system  of  protection  in  favor  of  inno- 
cent commerce  was  invariable. 

Hence  it  follows  that  his  Danish  Majesty  only  now  renews  ties 
which  have  not  ceased  to  exist.  The  undersigned  thinks  himself,  in 
consequence,  authorized  to  protest,  formally,  against  proceedings  of 
so  hostile  a  nature,  which  the  King  his  master  could  not  but  have  con- 
sidered as  an  open  and  premeditated  provocation,  had  not  the  communi- 
cation been  accompanied  with  the  assurance  that  His  Britannic  Maj- 
esty still  desires  to  maintain  good  harmony  with  Denmark ;  a  desire 
which  His  Danish  Majesty  has  constantly  professed,  and  of  which  he 
has  given  the  most  unequivocal  proofs. 

The  undersigned,  who  for  a  number  of  years  has  felicitated  him- 
self upon  being  the  interpreter  of  the  unalterable  sentiments  of  the 
King  his  master,  is  deeply  hurt  that  false  impressions  have  just  men- 
aced the  good  understanding  between  the  two  Crowns.  He  wishes 
that  he  could  still  be  the  instrument  of  an  explanation  calculated  to  do 
away  injurious  doubts,  and  to  prevent  incalculable  consequences  to 
the  interests  of  the  reciprocal  powers. 

It  is  with  these  sentiments,  and  v/ith  those  of  perfect  consideration, 
that  he  has  the  honor  to  renew  to  his  Excellency  Tord  Grenville  the 
homage  of  his  respect. 

M^edel-Jarlsberg 

January  i6,  i8oi. 

^Antc,  p.  440. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  563 

Reply  of  Baron  Ehrensward,  Swedish  Minister  at  London,  to  the 
Notification  of  Lord  Grenville  regarding  the  Embargo  on 
Danish  and  Swedish  Ships,  January  17,  180P 

The  undersigned.  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Imperial  Swedish 
Majesty,  received  the  official  notification,  by  which  his  Excellency  Lord 
Grenville,  first  Minister  of  State,  signified  to  the  undersigned,  that  His 
Britannic  Majesty  had  ordered  an  embargo  to  be  laid  on  all  the 
Swedish  ships  that  should  be  found  in  the  harbors  within  his  domin- 
ions. So  unexpected  an  event  between  Powers  who  were  in  relations 
of  friendship  towards  each  other,  was  received  with  astonishment  by 
His  Imperial  Majesty,  who  was  not  only  unconscious  of  having  given 
His  Britannic  Majesty  the  least  cause  of  complaint,  but  on  the  contrary 
was  entitled  to  have  demanded  indemnification  for  repeated  aggres- 
sions. Actuated  by  this  reflection,  he  rather  expected  that  the  notifica- 
tion was  transmitted  with  the  view  to  bury  his  grievances  in  oblivion, 
than  to  give  occasion  for  fresh  ones,  which  should  renew  the  remem- 
brance of  the  past. 

As  the  English  Court  has  stated,  as  the  ground  of  this  notification, 
that  a  maritime  convention  was  in  contemplation,  it  would  doubtless 
have  acted  with  more  justice,  had  it  waited  for  an  official  communica- 
tion from  the  Swedish  Court,  which  it  most  assuredly  would  in  proper 
time  have  received,  of  a  convention,  which  is  considered  in  so  odious 
a  point  of  view,  as  to  urge  it  to  an  act  of  violence  against  a  Court, 
whose  connection  wath  England  nothing  else  could  have  disturbed.  As 
the  dispute  between  the  Russian  and  English  Courts  related  to  the 
island  of  Malta,  and  the  declaration  of  the  Danish  Court  referred  to 
the  convention  of  1780,  the  undersigned  can  see  no  just  reason  why  the 
Swedish  Court,  which  had  given  no  cause  of  complaint  to  the  English, 
and  from  which  no  other  declaration  was  required  than  what  related 
to  the  note  of  the  31st  of  December,  which  has  just  been  received, 
should  be  attacked  in  so  hostile  a  manner  before  any  answer  had  been 
given  to  the  insinuations  contained  in  that  note. 

The  undersigned,  who  imparted  the  contents  of  the  note  of  his 
Excellency  Lord  Grenville  to  his  Court,  is  obliged,  in  conformity  to 
the  orders  of  his  master,  to  protest,  as  far  as  by  the  present  act  he  can 
formally  protest,  against  the  embargo  laid  on  the  Swedish  ships,  and 
all  loss  or  damage  that  may  be  thereby  occasioned.  He  demands,  in 
the  most  forcible  and  expressive  terms,  that,  in  pursuance  of  the  stipu- 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  221. 


564  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

lations  of  the  treaty  of  1661,  the  embargo  may  be  taken  off,  the  con- 
tinuance of  which  can  no  otherwise  be  considered  than  as  a  designed 
and  premeditated  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of  England,  as  well 
by  the  detention  of  the  convoy,  as  in  respect  to  the  affair  at  Barcelona. 
The  undersigned,  whom  the  expression  of  the  desire  of  the  British 
Court  could  not  escape,  observes,  in  the  hostile  determination  by  which 
it  is  accompanied,  only  to  give  His  Imperial  Swedish  Majesty  cause 
of  complaint,  as  well  by  the  detention  of  the  convoy,  as  in  respect  to 
the  affair  at  Barcelona.  He  wishes  the  British  Court  had  conformed 
to  the  truth  of  its  assurances  by  its  actions,  in  which  case  this  Court 
would  have  been  actuated  by  corresponding  sentiments.^ 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor,  etc. 

Baron  von  Ehrensward 

London,  January  ly,  i8oi. 


Note  of  Lord  Carysfort,  British  Minister  at  Berlin,  to  Count  Haug- 
witz,  Prussian  Minister  of  State,  regarding  the  Armed  Neu- 
trality League,  January  27,  1801^ 

x\s  the  undersigned  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni- 
potentiary has  been  directed  by  his  Court  to  communicate  to  the 
Prussian  Ministry  His  Majesty's  note,  which,  by  command  of  His 
Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  was  presented  to  the 
Ministers  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  he  can  not  discharge  this  commis- 
sion without  likewise  expressing  his  sincere  satisfaction  in  being  au- 
thorized to  declare  how  thoroughly  His  Majesty  is  convinced  that 
Prussia  can  never  have  sanctioned  the  measures  which  have  given  rise 
to  the  above-cited  note.  Those  measures  openly  disclose  an  intention 
to  prescribe  rules  to  the  British  Empire,  on  a  subject  of  the  greatest 
importance ;  to  force  those  rules  upon  Great  Britain,  and  for  that  end, 
before  any  of  the  Powers  who  have  concurred  in  it  have  given  the 
smallest  intimation  to  His  Majesty,  to  enter  into  a  league,  the  object 


iln  consequence  of  the  above  official  intelligence  being  received  at  Stockholm. 
all  Swedish  ships  were  immediately  stopped  from_  going  to  England,  and  an 
embargo  was  laid  upon  all  English  ships  in  the  Swedish  harbors. 

"^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  213. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  565 

of  whicli  is  to  renew  pretensions  which  Great  Britain  at  every  time 
has  considered  hostile  to  its  rights  and  interests,  and  so  declared  when- 
ever an  opportunity  presented — pretensions  which  the  Russian  Court 
has  abandoned,  not  only  in  fact,  but  which,  by  a  treaty  actually  in 
force,  Russia  is  bound  to  oppose,  and  the  execution  of  which  treaty 
His  Majesty  is  entitled  to  insist  upon.  When  a  ship  of  war  belonging 
to  His  Danish  Majesty  resisted  by  force  the  execution  of  a  right,  which 
the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  by  virtue  of  the  clearest  and 
most  express  stipulations  of  his  treaties  which  the  Court  of  Denmark 
had  demanded,  His  Majesty,  on  that  occasion,  confined  himself  to  the 
adoption  of  such  measures  as  the  protection  of  the  trade  of  his  sub- 
jects required  to  be  given  against  that  measure  of  hostility,  which  this 
conduct  on  the  part  of  an  officer  bearing  His  Danish  Majesty's  com- 
mission, seemed  to  show.  An  amicable  arrangement  put  an  end  to  this 
dispute,  and  the  King  flattered  himself,  not  only  that  all  misunder- 
standing on  that  subject  was  removed,  but  amity  between  the  two 
Courts  was  strengthened  anew  and  confirmed.  In  this  situation  of 
affairs  His  Majesty  must  have  learned  with  no  less  astonishment  than 
concern,  that  the  Court  of  Copenhagen  was  employed  in  negotiations 
to  renew  the  hostile  confederacy  against  Great  Britain  which  took 
place  in  1780,  and  that  also  great  preparations  were  going  on  in  the 
ports  of  Denmark.  Under  these  circumstances  the  King  must  have 
been  compelled  to  call  for  explanations  from  the  Court  of  Denmark. 
At  this  moment  he  received  information  that  a  confederacy  was  signed 
at  Petersburg,  and  the  answer  of  the  Danish  Minister  left  no  doubt 
respecting  the  nature  and  object  of  this  convention,  as  he  declared  in 
the  most  express  manner,  "That  these  negotiations  had  in  view  the 
renewal  of  those  relations  which  had  been  entered  into  between  the 
same  Powers  in  the  years  1780  and  1781,"  adding,  "that  His  Majesty 
the  Emperor  of  Russia  had  proposed  to  the  northern  Powers  the  re- 
newal of  their  connection  in  its  original  form."  The  engagements 
alluded  to  had  for  their  object  principles  of  maritime  law  which  never 
had  been  recognized  by  the  tribunals  of  Europe,  and  the  contracting 
Parties  mutually  engaged  to  maintain  them  by  force,  and  to  compel 
by  force  other  nations  to  adopt  them.  They  are  still  more  repugnant 
to  the  express  stipulations  of  the  treaties  which  subsist  between  the 
Courts  of  Stockholm  and  Denmark,  and  the  British  Empire.  The 
convention  which  these  engagements  were  to  renew  was  negotiated 
at  a  time  when  the  Court  of  Petersburg  had  adopted  hostile  measures 


566  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

against  the  persons  and  property  of  His  Majesty's  subjects,  and  when 
nothing  but  the  extraordinary  moderation  of  the  King  could  have 
authorized  other  Powers  not  to  consider  him  as  at  open  war  with  that 
Court.  In  such  a  state  of  things,  nothing  certainly  could  be  more 
inconsistent  with  the  ideas  of  neutrality,  and  nothing  more  distinctly 
indicate  a  hostile  disposition,  than  that  those  engagements  were  not 
postponed  till  it  was  ascertained  whether  Russia  was  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  belligerent  Power.  Such  forbearance  was  the  more  to  be 
expected,  and  particularly  from  the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  as,  by  an 
express  article  of  the  league  of  1780,  the  Danish  ports  and  havens  in 
Norway  were  placed  at  the  disposal  of  Russia  for  the  purpose  of 
facilitating  the  prosecution  of  hostilities  out  of  the  Baltic.  When, 
therefore,  the  King  was  informed  by  one  of  the  contracting  Parties 
that  the  object  of  the  negotiations  which  had  been  begun  at  Peters- 
burg, without  giving  the  least  intimation,  and  which  at  last,  according 
to  the  information  received  by  the  King,  had  terminated  in  the  con- 
clusion of  a  convention,  was  no  other  than  to  renew  the  former 
confederacy  to  press  upon  His  Majesty  a  new  code  of  law  to  which 
he  had  already  refused  his  assent;  and  when  moreover  he  had  the 
most  certain  intelligence,  and  could  no  longer  doubt,  that  the  Powers 
of  the  Baltic,  engaged  in  this  transaction,  were  pursuing  warlike  prep- 
arations with  the  utmost  activity ;  when  one  of  those  Powers  had  placed 
itself  in  a  state  of  actual  hostilities  with  His  Majesty;  no  other  alter- 
native remained,  but  either  to  submit,  or  to  adopt  measures  which 
were  calculated  to  put  an  effectual  stop  to  the  hostile  operation  of  a 
league,  which,  by  the  declaration  of  the  Danish  Court  itself,  was  openly 
directed  against  His  Majesty.  Meanwhile  His  Majesty  has  not  omitted 
on  this  occasion  to  display  his  wonted  justice  and  good-will.  Although 
he  felt  it  necessary,  for  the  maintenance  of  his  rights,  to  secure  some 
pledge  against  the  hostile  attacks  which  were  meditated  against  his 
rights,  yet  he  has  taken  the  utmost  care  to  guard  against  loss  and  injury 
to  individuals.  Firmly  convinced  that  his  conduct  towards  neutral 
States  has  been  confoimable  to  the  recognized  principles  of  laws, 
whose  basis  and  sanction  is  to  be  found  not  in  passing  interests  and 
momentary  convenience,  but  in  the  general  principle  of  justice;  of 
laws  which  have  been  received  and  observed  by  the  admiralty  courts 
of  all  the  maritime  Powers  of  Europe ;  His  Majesty  does  not  yet 
forego  the  hope  that  the  Courts  of  Stockholm  and  Copenhagen  will 
not  take  upon  them  the  responsibility  that  will  fall  upon  the  authors 
of  the  war;  that  particularly  they  will  not  expose  themselves  to  thnt 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  567 

responsibility  for  the  introduction  of  innovations,  the  notorious  in- 
justice of  which  has  induced  those  Powers  by  which  they  were  first 
broached,  to  oppose,  when  they  found  themselves  at  war;  innovations 
besides,  which  are  expressly  repugnant  to  those  treaties  which  have 
been  concluded  with  His  ^lajesty.  The  step  on  which  His  Majesty 
has  resolved  must  have  long  been  foreseen.  The  British  Government 
has  never  concealed  that  it  considered  the  league  of  1780  as  hostile, 
and  had  never  ceased  that  attention  with  which  it  watches  over  the 
rights  of  the  nation.  It  immediately  resisted  the  attempt  to  renew  the 
principles  which  at  the  above-mentioned  period  had  been  agitated,  and 
the  undersigned  declared  to  Count  Haugwitz  at  the  first  conference  he 
had  with  him  on  his  arrival  at  Berlin,  "That  His  Majesty  would  never 
submit  to  pretensions  vvhich  were  irreconcilable  to  the  true  principles 
of  public  law,  and  which  strike  at  the  foundations  of  the  greatness 
and  maritime  power  of  his  kingdoms."  Still  later,  in  the  beginning  of 
November,  the  undersigned  had  the  honor  to  represent  to  his  Excel- 
lency, as  the  Minister  of  a  Power  connected  with  His  Majesty  by 
the  most  intimate  friendship,  what  disagreeable  consequences  must  fol- 
low from  the  attempt  of  the  northern  Powers  to  press  forward  those 
pretensions.  He  has  never  ceased  to  renew  this  declaration,  when,  by 
the  command  of  His  Majesty,  he  has  been  the  interpreter  of  that  satis- 
faction given  to  the  King  by  the  repeated  assurances  of  the  friendship 
of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  and  of  those  constant  sentiments 
of  perfect  justice  of  which  His  Majesty  has  never  for  a  moment  enter- 
tained a  doubt.  His  Excellency  Count  Haugwitz  will  likewise  easily 
recollect  the  time  when  the  undersigned,  ultimately  convinced  of  the 
friendly  intentions  of  the  Prussian  Government,  communicated  to  him, 
by  the  command  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  the  King's  resolution  to 
allow  of  no  measures  which  had  for  their  object  to  introduce  innova- 
tions in  the  maritime  law  now  in  force,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  defend 
that  system  in  every  event,  and  to  maintain  its  entire  execution  as  it 
had  subsisted  in  all  the  Courts  of  Europe  prior  to  the  year  1780.  H 
the  Court  of  Denmark  had  announced  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner, 
the  real  objects  and  contents  of  the  engagements  into  which  it  had 
entered,  the  declaration  of  the  Court,  that  Prussia  was  one  of  the 
Powders  concerned  in  the  negotiation,  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
satisfy  the  King,  and  to  prove  to  him  that  it  could  have  no  hostile 
views  against  his  Government ;  and  even  still  His  Alajesty  is  convinced 
that  he  may  implicitly  rely  on  the  friendship  of  His  Prussian  Majesty. 


568  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

It  is  true,  that,  in  relation  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  there  can 
be  no  similarity  between  the  northern  Powers  and  Prussia.  Those 
Powers  are  connected  with  His  Majesty  by  the  stipulations  of  mutual 
treaties,  which  are  less  favorable  to  their  interests,  and  which  more  or 
less  modify  and  soften  the  rigor  of  the  general  law ;  whereas  between 
His  Majesty  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Prussia  no  treaty  of  com- 
merce exists,  and  all  intercourse  between  them  is  regulated  by  the 
general  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  established  usages.  If, 
however,  His  Majesty  were  to  consider  his  own  sentiments,  and  the 
incessant  wish  he  has  shown  to  preserve  the  friendship  of  a  monarch 
with  whom  he  is  connected  by  so  many  ties,  he  could  not  at  all  antici- 
pate the  possibility  of  a  difference  which  might  not  easily  and  speedily 
be  terminated  by  an  amicable  discussion.  The  repeated  assurances 
of  such  sentiments  on  the  part  of  His  Prussian  Majesty,  which  the 
undersigned  has  been  empowered  to  transmit  to  his  Court,  confirm  this 
agreeable  anticipation ;  and  the  known  principles  which  have  constantly* 
directed  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  do  not  tend  to  countenance 
the  supposition  that  the  latter  has  entered  into  the  confederacy,  or  can 
enter  into  the  confederacy,  to  support  by  force  principles  in  common 
with  other  Powers,  whose  hostile  views  against  His  Britannic  Majesty 
have  been  openly  proved.  Whatever  sentiments  the  Prussian  Govern- 
ment may  entertain  in  regard  to  the  new  principles  themselves,  yet  it 
is  too  just,  and  knows  too  well  what  sovereigns  owe  to  their  people, 
and  to  one  another,  to  favor  for  a  moment  the  design  to  employ  force 
in  order  to  induce  His  Britannic  Majesty  to  acknowledge  a  code  which 
the  latter  deems  inconsistent  with  the  honor  and  security  of  his  Crown. 

Carysfort 
Berlin,  January  2/,  i8oi. 


British   Orders   of   Council   respecting  the    Embargo   on   Russian, 
Danish,  and  Swedish  Vessels^ 

At  the  Court  of  St.  James's,  the  28th  of  January,  1801 ;  present,  the 
King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 

Whereas,  His  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his  Privy  Council, 
has  been  pleased  to  cause  an  embargo  to  be  laid  upon  vessels  belonging 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  222. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  569 

to  the  subjects  of  Russia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  now  within,  or  which 
hereafter  should  come  into  any  of  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  together  with  all  persons  and  effects  on 
board  the  said  vessels :  and  whereas  it  has  been  represented  to  His 
Majesty,  that  the  goods  on  board  several  of  the  vessels  so  aetained  by 
the  embargo  are  the  property  of  His  Majesty's  subjects,  or  the  property 
of  persons  not  being  subjects  of  Russia,  Denmark,  or  Sweden,  His 
Majesty  is  thereupon  pleased,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his  Privy 
Council,  to  order,  as  it  is  hereby  ordered,  that  all  goods  laden  on  board 
Russian,  Danish,  or  Swedish  vessels,  now  detained  under  the  said 
embargo,  and  intended  to  be  exported,  shall  be  delivered  to  the  disposal 
of  the  owners  or  their  agents,  upon  affidavit  made  and  produced  to  the 
officer  in  whose  custody  the  said  vessels  may  be,  that  the  said  goods 
were  not  at  the  time  of  shipment,  nor  are  now,  the  property  of  the 
subjects  of  Russia,  Denmark,  or  Sweden;  and  also,  that  all  goods 
which,  by  virtue  of  licenses  under  His  Majesty's  sign  manual,  have 
been  imported  in  vessels  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  Russia,  Denmark, 
or  Sweden,  shall  in  like  manner  be  forthwith  delivered  to  the  disposal 
of  the  owners  or  their  agents,  on  their  making  and  producing  a  like 
affidavit,  and  on  sufficient  proof  that  His  Majesty's  license  to  import 
the  said  goods  had  been  obtained. 

And  His  Majesty  is  hereby  further  pleased  to  order,  that  all  goods 
which  have  been  imported  into  this  country,  in  Russian,  Danish,  or 
Swedish  vessels,  without  license  under  His  Majesty's  sign  manual,  and 
which  are  now  detained  by  the  embargo,  shall  likewise  be  delivered  to 
the  owners  or  their  agents,  on  affidavit  being  made,  that  such  goods 
were  not  at  the  time  of  shipment,  nor  are  now,  the  property  of  sub- 
jects of  Russia,  Denmark,  or  Sweden;  and  on  their  giving  sufficient 
bail  to  abide  adjudication,  if  any  proceedings  should  be  commenced 
against  the  said  goods  within  two  months  from  the  date  of  such  de- 
livery ;  but  in  case  no  such  proceedings  should  be  commenced  within 
two  months  from  the  date  of  such  delivery,  then  the  bond  so  given 
to  be  void :  and  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  His 
Majesty's  Treasury-,  the  Lords  Commissioners  of  the  Admiralty,  and 
the  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Admiralty,  are  to  give  the  necessary 
directions  herein  as  to  them  may  respectively  appertain. 

W.  Fawkfner 


570  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

British  Orders  of  Council  respecting  Payments  to  Subjects  of  Rus- 
sia, Sweden  and  Denmark^ 

At  the  Court  of  St.  James's,  the  28th  of  January  180 1 ;  present,  the 
King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty  in  Council. 

Whereas  His  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his  Privy  Council, 
has  been  pleased  to  cause  an  embargo  to  be  laid  upon  vessels  belonging 
to  the  subjects  of  Russia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  now  within,  or  which 
hereafter  should  come  into  any  of  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  together  with  all  persons  and  effects  on 
board  the  said  vessels;  His  Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his 
Privy  Council,  is  pleased  to  order,  and  it  is  hereby  ordered,  that  no 
person  residing  within  His  Majesty's  dominions  do  presume  to  pay 
any  money  or  bills  due  or  payable  to,  or  on  behalf  of,  any  person 
or  persons  being  subjects,  or  residing  within  the  dominions  of  the 
Emperor  of  Russia,  or  of  the  Kings  of  Denmark  or  Sweden,  or  any 
of  them,  for  the  freight  of  merchandise  imported  in  any  Russian, 
Swedish,  or  Danish  ship,  which  is  detained  under  the  said  embargo,  or 
which  shall  hereafter  be  brought  into  any  of  the  ports  of  His  Majesty's 
dominions,  until  His  Majesty's  pleasure  shall  be  further  known,  or  until 
other  provision  shall  be  made  by  law : — whereof  all  persons  whom  it 
may  concern  are  to  take  notice,  and  govern  themselves  accordingly. 

W.  Faw^kener 


Note  of  Lord  Carysfort  to  Count  Haugwitz,  regarding  Relations 
between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  February  1,  180P 

The  undersigned,  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni- 
potentiary of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  has  the  honor  to  address  himself 
to  Count  Haugwitz,  by  command  of  his  Court,  in  order  to  communi- 
cate to  him  the  following  particulars : 

The  spirit  of  patience  and  of  moderation  which  prevails  in  the  note 
of  Lord  Grenville  to  Count  Kostopshin,  will  not  escape  the  notice  of 
his  Excellency. 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  223. 
^Ibid.,  p.  224. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  571 

A  solemn  treaty  between  the  two  Powers  had  given  the  respective 
subjects  of  each  a  complete  security  for  the  prosecution  of  their  trade; 
and  even,  in  case  of  a  rupture,  it  had  been  agreed,  that  not  only  no 
embargo  should  be  laid,  but  that  the  subjects  on  both  sides  should  have 
a  whole  year  to  carry  away  their  eltects,  and  to  arrange  their  affairs 
in  the  country. 

Notwithstanding  these  sacred  stipulations,  the  ships  of  British  sub- 
jects in  the  Russian  ports  are  detained,  and  their  property  in  an  extra- 
ordinary manner,  upon  various  pretexts,  sequestrated  or  sold.  Their 
persons  are  likewise  put  under  arrest,  and  a  number  of  British  sailors 
have  been  forcibly  taken  out  of  their  ships,  and  been  sent  under  guard 
and  in  the  midst  of  winter  into  the  interior  of  the  country. 

In  consequence  of  these  new  acts  of  violence,  Lord  Grenville,  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  received  His  Majesty's  order  to 
address  a  second  note  to  Count  Kostopshin,  in  which  His  Majesty 
stated  his  having  appointed  a  commissary  to  superintend  the  safety 
and  the  wants  of  his  unfortunate  subjects;  a  circumstance  which  is 
usual  even  among  the  Powers  that  are  actually  at  war.  Lord  Grenville 
in  that  paper  likewise  formally  insisted  on  the  execution  of  the  treaty 
of  1793.^  But,  though  he  made  the  strong  and  just  remonstrances  which 
such  circumstances  demanded,  yet  His  Majesty's  constant  disposition 
again  ^o  restore  the  former  connection  and  good  understanding  be- 
tween the  two  Crowns  has  been  in  vain. 

His  Britannic  Majesty  anticipates  the  sentiments  which  the  King  of 
Prussia  will  entertain  when  he  is  informed  of  the  unheard-of  and 
unjustifiable  manner  in  which  His  Britannic  Majesty's  remonstrances 
were  heard  by  the  Court  of  St.  Petersburg.  The  note  of  Count  Kostop- 
shin to  Lord  Grenville,  of  the  20th  of  December,  O.  S.,  a  copy  of  which 
the  undersigned  is  ordered  to  communicate  to  Count  Haugwitz,  will 
enable  His  Prussian  Majesty  to  judge  whether  the  undersigned  is 
called  upon  to  make  any  observations  upon  it. 

The  undersigned  has  received  orders  to  make  known  to  the  Court 
of  Berlin,  that  this  conduct,  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia, 
has  put  an  end  to  all  correspondence  between  the  Courts  of  London 
and  St.  Petersburg;  and  the  connection  between  the  extraordinary 
violence  committed  upon  the  persons  and  property  of  His  Majesty's 
subjects,  and  with  the  conclusion  of  a  hostile  confederacy,  which  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  has  formed  for  the  express  and  avowed  purpose 


iTreaty  of  Alliance  of  March  25,  1793.    Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  5,  p.  438 


572  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  introducing  those  innovations  into  the  maritime  code,  which  His 
Britannic  Majesty  has  ever  opposed,  has  at  length  produced  a  state  of 
open  war  between  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  Russia. 

It  will  not  be  useless  to  remark,  that  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  at  the 
present  crisis,  can  not  be  considered  as  a  neutral  Power,  because  he  was 
at  war  with  Great  Britain  before  he  himself  was  at  peace  with  France. 

The  undersigned  shall  have  done  justice  to  the  charge  with  which 
he  is  intrusted,  when  he  declares,  in  the  name  of  the  King  his  master, 
that  His  Majesty,  on  weighing  the  present  circumstances  of  Europe, 
is  willing  to  forbear  demanding  from  the  Court  of  Prussia  that  succor 
which  was  stipulated  by  treaty,  though  he  considers  the  casus  foederis 
as  completely  coming  within  those  circumstances  in  which  they  stand  : 
and  that  His  Britannic  Majesty  can  not  doubt  that  he  will  receive 
from  his  ally  all  the  proofs  of  friendship  which  the  events  of  this  new 
war  would  have  required. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  be,  etc. 

Carysfort 

Berlin,  February  i,  i8oi. 


Speech  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  to  Both  Houses  of  Parliament, 

February  2,  180r 

My  Lords  and  Gentlemen  : 

At  a  crisis  so  important  to  the  interests  of  my  people,  I  derive  great 
satisfaction  from  being  enabled,  for  the  first  time,  to  avail  myself  of 
the  advice  and  assistance  of  the  Parliament  of  my  United  Kingdom 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

This  memorable  era,  distinguished  by  the  accomplishment  of  a  meas- 
ure, calculated  to  augment  and  consolidate  the  strength  and  resources 
of  the  empire,  and  to  cement  more  closely  the  interests  and  affections 
of  my  subjects,  will,  I  trust,  be  equally  marked  by  that  vigor,  energy, 
and  firmness,  which  the  circumstances  of  our  present  situation  pecu- 
liarly require. 

The  unfortunate  course  of  events  on  the  continent,  and  the  conse- 


^Annual  Register,  1801,  p.  254. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  573 

quences  which  must  be  expected  to  result  from  it,  cannot  fail  to  be 
matter  of  anxiety  and  concern  to  all  who  have  a  just  feeling  for  the 
security  and  independence  of  Europe. 

Your  astonishment,  as  well  as  your  regret,  must  be  excited  by  the 
conduct  of  those  Powers,  whose  attention,  at  such  a  period,  appears 
to  be  more  engaged  in  endeavors  to  weaken  the  naval  force  of  the 
British  Empire,  which  has  hitherto  opposed  so  powerful  an  obstacle 
to  the  inordinate  ambition  of  France,  than  in  concerting  the  means  of 
mutual  defense  against  their  common  and  increasing  danger. 

The  representations  which  I  directed  to  be  made  to  the  Court  of 
Petersburg,  in  consequence  of  the  outrages  committed  against  the 
ships,  property,  and  persons  of  my  subjects,  have  been  treated  with 
the  utmost  disrespect ;  and  the  proceedings  of  which  I  complained  have 
been  aggravated  by  subsequent  acts  of  injustice  and  violence.  Under 
these  circumstances,  a  convention  has  been  concluded  by  that  Court, 
with  those  of  Copenhagen  and  Stockholm;  the  object  of  which,  as 
avowed  by  one  of  the  contracting  Parties,  to  renew  their  former  en- 
gagements for  establishing  by  force  a  new  code  of  maritime  law,  in- 
consistent with  the  rights,  and  hostile  to  the  interests  of  this  country. 

In  this  situation  I  could  not  hesitate  as  to  the  conduct  which  it  be- 
came me  to  pursue.  I  have  taken  the  earliest  measures  to  repel  the 
aggressions  of  this  hostile  confederacy,  and  to  support  those  principles 
which  are  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  our  naval  strength,  and 
which  are  grounded  on  the  system  of  public  law,  so  long  established 
and  recognized  in  Europe.  I  have,  at  the  same  time,  given  such  assur- 
ances as  manifest  my  disposition  to  renew  my  ancient  relations  with 
those  Powers,  whenever  it  can  be  done  consistently  with  the  honor  of 
my  Crown,  and  with  the  just  regard  to  the  safety  of  my  subjects. 

You  will,  I  am  persuaded,  omit  nothing  on  your  part  that  can  afford 
me  the  most  vigorous  and  effectual  support,  in  my  firm  determination 
to  maintain,  to  the  utmost,  against  every  attack,  the  naval  rights  and 
interests  of  my  empire. 


574  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Swedish  Protest  of  February  7,  1801,  on  the  subject  of  the  alleged 
Illegal  Proceedings  on  the  Part  of  the  British  in  the  Harbor  of 
Barcelona^ 

By  this  public  instrument  of  protest,  be  it  known  and  made  manifest 
to  all  people  whom  it  may  concern,  that  on  the  seventh  day  of  February 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  one,  before  me  Thomas  Pain,  notary 
public,  residing  in  the  town  and  port  of  Dover,  in  the  county  of  Kent, 
by  lawful  authority  admitted  and  sworn,  personally  appeared  Martin 
Rubarth,  master  of  the  ketch  or  vessel  called  Hoffnung,  belonging  to 
Barth,  in  Swedish  Pomerania,  of  the  burden  of  thirty-eight  heavy 
Swedish  lasts,  or  thereabouts,  now  lying  in  Dover  harbor,  and  Jacob 
Christopher  Glasen,  and  Johan  Hendrick  Heuer,  mariners,  also  belong- 
ing to  the  said  vessel,  and  upon  their  faith  and  honesty  solemnly  de- 
clared, and  for  truth  affirmed  and  witnessed  by  the  interpretation  of 
Roelof  Symons,  of  Dover  aforesaid,  gentleman;  that  the  said  vessel 
took  in  ballast  at  Oporto,  and  set  sail  and  departed  from  thence  in 
good  order  and  condition,  staunch  and  tight,  on  the  19th  day  of  July 
last  past,  with  the  wind  favorable,  bound  to  the  Mediterranean  in 
search  of  freight,  and  proceeded,  with  easterly  winds  and  variable 
weather,  without  any  thing  particular  occurring,  until  the  23d  day  of 
August  following,  when  they  arrived  and  brought  up  in  the  road  of 
Alicant,  and  were  there  put  under  quarantine,  and  on  the  25th  in  the 
afternoon  released  from  such  restraint,  when  the  said  master  made 
inquiries  for  freight,  but  none  could  be  obtained,  and  the  wind  was 
at  northeast  and  east-southeast,  and  they  replenished  their  stock  of 
water  and  got  in  readiness  to  proceed :  and  on  the  28th  weighed  with 
a  light  breeze  northerly,  and  steered  for  Barcelona;  and  on  the  29th 
being  under  Cape  Saint  Martius,  they  were  boarded  by  a  Spanish 
privateer,  and  her  crew  took  from  the  said  vessel  some  stock  fish  and 
vegetables,  and  then  quitted  her,  and  they  proceeded,  with  variable 
winds  and  weather,  without  any  thing  particular  occurring,  until  the 
3d  day  of  September  following,  when,  being  between  Sitger  and  the 
Castle  de  Fel,  two  other  Spanish  privateers  rowed  from  the  land  to- 
wards the  said  vessel  and  hailed  her,  when  the  said  master  informed 
them  they  came  from  Alicant,  and  were  destined  to  Barcelona ;  and  the 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  225.  This  protest  relates  to  the  Swedish 
ship  which  was  alleged,  in  the  correspondence  between  Spain  and  Sweden,  to 
have  been  made  use  of  by  the  English  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  the  two 
frigates  at  Barcelona.  The  master  and  people  made  this  protest  respecting  that 
transaction.     Ibid. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  575 

people  on  board  the  said  privateer  then  inquired  whether  the  said  ap- 
pearers  had  seen  any  EngHsh  frigates  or  other  vessels,  v^hich  being 
answered  in  the  negative,  the  said  privateers  quitted  the  said  vessel,  and 
steered  southwest,  and  it  fell  calm ;  and  on  the  4th,  at  half  past  one 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  a  breeze  sprung  up  at  west-southwest  by  w^est, 
the  point  of  Cape  de  Fel  bearing  northwest  by  west,  distant  about  one 
and  a  half  German  miles,  and  they  steered  along  the  land  for  Barcelona 
aforesaid,  and  about  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  saw,  under  the  land 
of  Lobregat,  a  line-of-battleship  and  a  frigate  with  Spanish  colors 
flying,  and  a  boat  and  crew  came  from  the  shore,  which  the  said 
appearers  afterwards  found  belonging  to  the  said  line-of -battleship ; 
and  the  crew  speaking  the  English  language,  the  said  appearers  found 
that  the  colors  they  had  seen  flying  were  false,  and  that  the  said  ships 
of  war  were  English ;  and  the  crew  of  the  said  boat  then  asked  from 
whence  the  said  vessel  came,  where  bound,  and  what  she  was  laden 
with?  to  which  the  said  master  replied,  he  came  from  Alicant  with 
ballast,  and  intended  going  to  Barcelona  to  procure  a  freight,  and  had 
brought  a  cargo  of  staves  from  Pillau  to  Oporto;  whereupon  the  said 
boat's  crew  examined  the  said  vessel's  papers,  and  asked  the  said 
master  if  he  had  letters  to  any  person  in  Spain,  as,  if  he  had,  his  said 
vessel  would  be  a  good  prize ;  who  replied,  no  such  letters  were  on 
board ;  when  the  said  boat  and  crew  quitted  the  said  vessel,  and  com- 
manded the  said  master  to  lay  his  top-sail  back,  and  keep  after  the  said 
line-of-battleship,  and  that  when  they  got  on  board,  if  a  flag  of  any 
nation  was  hoisted,  he  might  proceed  on  his  voyage ;  but  no  such  flag 
was  hoisted,  and  the  said  two  ships  of  war  kept  in  for  the  land,  and 
fired  a  shot  at  the  said  appearers'  vessel,  which  obliged  them  to  follow ; 
and  a  boat  with  two  ofticers  and  a  great  number  of  men  came  on  board, 
and  took  the  command  and  possession  of  the  said  vessel ;  when  the  said 
master  asked  what  was  their  intention  for  so  doing?  and  the  said 
officers  replied,  that  they  did  not  know,  but  were  obliged  to  follow 
their  commander's  orders ;  and  toward  evening,  when  it  came  on  to  be 
dark,  they  kept  out  to  sea  with  the  top-sail  constantly  laid  back,  and 
then  many  boats  (to  the  best  of  the  said  appearers'  recollection  eight 
in  number)  came  alongside,  filled  with  armed  officers  and  men,  and 
they  got  on  board  the  said  vessel,  at  which  the  said  appearers  were 
greatly  alarmed ;  and  the  said  master  asked  the  officer  who  commanded 
the  man  at  the  helm,  what  was  intended  to  be  done  with  the  said  vessel 
and  her  crew?  who  informed  him,  that  the  captain  was  on  board,  and 


576  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

that  the  said  master  might  go  forward  and  inquire  of  him,  which  he 
accordingly  did;  and  he  commanded  him  to  be  silent,  and  spoke  to 
another  officer,  who  put  a  pistol  to  the  said  master's  breast,  and  in- 
formed him.  if  he  uttered  a  word  to  any  man,  a  shot  should  end  his 
existence ;  and  they  steering  the  said  vessel  for  Barcelona  road,  the 
said  master  begged  he  might  be  allowed  to  get  her  anchors  ready,  which 
was  permitted ;  and  while  the  same  was  doing,  one  of  the  crew  spoke 
a  few  words,  when  an  officer  immediately  jumped  up,  and  would  have 
killed  him,  had  he  not  fortunately  been  prevented  by  another  officer, 
and  between  eight  and  nine  o'clock  in  the  evening  they  arrived  in 
Barcelona  road,  and  were  hailed  by  a  Spanish  frigate  riding  at  anchor, 
when  the  said  master  not  being  permitted  to  reply,  one  of  the  said 
English  officers  called  out,  "Sueco,  Sueco,"  and  a  firing  began  from 
the  said  Spanish  frigate  at  the  said  vessel,  when  the  said  English  officers 
and  people  took  to  their  boats  and  proceeded  towards  her,  and  the 
firing  continuing,  the  said  appearers  put  their  helm  a-lee,  and  ran  into 
the  cabin  to  prevent  being  shot,  and  soon  afterwards  the  said  firing 
ceased,  when  the  said  master  and  his  crew  got  on  the  deck  to  save  the 
sails,  and  bring  the  said  vessel  up;  and  as  soon  as  they  had  let  the 
anchor  go,  and  hauled  the  foresails  down,  another  firing  commenced, 
by  which  Hans  Peter  Rubarth  (the  then  mate  of  the  said  vessel,  and 
brother  to  the  said  master)  was  shot  through  his  left  shoulder  and 
arm,  and  fell  to  all  appearance  dead ;  at  which  the  said  appearers  were 
much  alarmed,  and  let  the  said  vessel  drive  with  the  little  cable  she  had 
out,  and  hastened  to  assist  him  into  the  cabin ;  and  the  said  appearers 
discovered,  that  the  said  English  officers  and  men  captured  in  their 
said  boats  two  Spanish  frigates,  in  which  they  passed  the  said  vessel, 
and  the  wind  got  more  off  the  shore,  and  the  firing  continued,  and  the 
shots  went  over  her  abaft,  and  she  drove  into  deep  water;  and,  to 
prevent  drifting  out  to  sea,  they  let  go  both  anchors,  and  made  the 
sails  fast,  and,  when  the  said  two  Spanish  frigates  had  got  out  a 
considerable  distance  to  sea,  some  Spanish  gunboats  came  near,  where- 
upon the  said  appearers  were  much  alarmed,  apprehending  they  would 
still  consider  the  said  vessel  an  enemy,  and  sink  her,  and  therefore 
hoisted  a  light  as  a  signal  that  they  were  friends ;  and  the  people  on 
board  the  said  gunboats  inquired  if  they  had  any  Englishmen  left, 
when  the  said  master  informed  them  there  were  not,  but  that  his  mate 
was  severely  wounded ;  when  one  of  the  said  gunboats  came  along- 
side, and  her  crew  inquired  if  any  other  person  was  sick;  and  being 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  577 

answered  that  all  the  others  were  in  perfect  health,  an  officer  came  on 
board,  who  seeing  the  said  master  weeping  over  his  wounded  brother, 
promised  to  acquaint  Mr.  Almgren,  the  Swedish  consul  at  Barcelona 
aforesaid,  of  his  distress,  and  to  send  people  on  board,  to  assist  in 
weighing  the  anchors,  and  conduct  the  said  vessel  into  the  harbor  of 
Barcelona  aforesaid  to  obtain  a  surgeon ;  that  on  the  5th  one  came  on 
board  wath  four  men,  and  she  was  towed  into  the  said  harbor,  and 
moored  in  a  proper  place  to  perform  quarantine,  and  continued  under 
such  restraint  ten  days,  and  was  then  released,  and  during  the  same 
the  said  master  was  obliged  to  keep  the  said  four  men,  and  also  the 
surgeon  and  two  other  men,  to  watch  the  said  mate ;  and  the  rigging, 
sails,  and  yawl,  which  were  shot  and  much  damaged,  they  repaired 
and  stoppered  as  well  as  they  could,  and  as  soon  as  pratic  was  obtained, 
the  said  mate  was  taken  on  shore  to  the  hospital  at  Barcelona  afore- 
said ;  and  the  said  master  having  obtained  freight  on  the  9th  day  of 
October  last,  sailed  from  Barcelona  aforesaid,  but  the  said  mate  con- 
tinued so  ill,  he  was  obliged  to  be  left  in  the  said  hospital.  That  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  month  of  December  following,  the  said  master  re- 
ceived a  letter,  dated  the  14th  day  of  the  said  month,  from  Daniel 
Christopher  Hingst,  of  Barth  aforesaid,  the  owner  of  the  said  vessel 
stating  that  the  said  mate  died  of  his  wounds  in  the  hospital  of  Barce- 
lona aforesaid,  on  the  29th  day  of  the  said  month  of  October,  leaving 
a  widow  and  three  infant  children.  And  also  the  said  appearers 
declared,  that  they  have  been  informed,  and  verily  believe,  that  the 
said  line-of-battleship  is  called  the  Minotaur,  Capt.  T.  Lewis,  but  they 
have  not  been  enabled  to  learn  the  name  of  the  said  English  frigate, 
or  of  her  commander,  and  that  they  used  their  utmost  endeavors  for 
the  preservation  of  the  said  vessel ;  that  whatever  damage  or  loss  the 
same  sustained  was  not  occasioned  by  or  through  any  neglect  or  default 
of  them,  or  any  of  the  then  crew,  or  by  reason  of  any  defect  or  fault  in 
the  said  vessel  or  her  tackling,  but  merely  by  means  of  the  said  capture. 
Therefore  the  said  master  has  desired  a  protest ;  wherefore  I,  the  said 
notary,  at  his  request,  have  solemnly  protested,  and  by  these  presents 
do  protest,  against  the  said  Captain  T.  Lewis,  and  the  other  officers  and 
crew  of  the  said  ship  Minotaur,  and  also  the  officers  and  crew  of  the 
said  English  frigate,  and  every  other  person  and  cause  occasioning 
the  said  capture  and  detention,  of  and  for  all  losses,  costs,  charges, 
damages,  demurrages,  suits,  and  expenses  already  and  hereafter  to  be 
suffered  and  sustained  thereby,  to  be  allowed  and  recovered  in  time 


578  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

and  place  convenient.  Thus  done  and  protested  in  Dover  aforesaid, 
in  the  presence  of  James  Moon  and  John  Finnings,  witnesses  thereto, 
called  and  requested.  In  testimony  of  the  truth  thereof,  the  said 
appearers,  interpreter,  and  witnesses,  subscribed  their  names  in  the 
registry  of  me  the  said  notary;  and  I  the  said  notary  have  hereunto 
set  my  hand,  and  affixed  my  notarial  seal.  Dated  the  day  and  year  first 
above  written. 

Tho.  Pain 

The  said  Martin  Rubarth,  Jacob  Christopher  Glasen,  and  Johan 
Henderick  Heuer,  were  sworn  on  the  Holy  Evangelists  to  the  truth  of 
the  aforegoing  protest ;  the  said  Roelof  Symons  being  first  sworn  faith- 
fully to  interpret  to  them,  at  Dover  aforesaid,  the  said  7th  day  of 
February  1801,  before  me, 

Tho.    Pain 
A  Master  Extraordinary  in  Chaticery 
Hoffnung,  Martin  Rubarth,  Master.    Protest  dated  February  7th,  1801. 


Reply  of  Count  Haugwitz  to  Lord  Carysfort,  February  12,  1801' 

The  undersigned,  State  and  Cabinet  Minister,  has  laid  before  His 
Prussian  Majesty  the  two  notes  which  Lord  Carysfort,  Envoy  Extra- 
ordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  from  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  has  done  him  the  honor  to  transmit  to  him 
on  the  27th  of  January,  and  1st  of  February  last.- 

The  undersigned  having  it  in  commission  to  return  an  explicit  and 
circumstantial  answer,  is  under  the  necessity  of  informing  Lord  Carys- 
fort, that  His  Majesty  can  not  see  without  the  utmost  grief  and  concern, 
the  violent  and  hasty  measures  to  which  the  Court  of  London  has 
proceeded  against  the  northern  naval  Powers.  Error  alone  can  have 
given  occasion  to  these  measures,  as  the  assertions  in  the  note  of  the 
27th  sufficiently  show.  In  that  it  is  said,  that  the  maritime  alliance 
"has   for  its  object,  to   annul   the  treaties   formerly   concluded   with 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  229. 
^Ante,  pp.  564,  570. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  579 

England,  and  to  prescribe  laws  to  her,  with  respect  to  the  principles 
of  them ;  that  the  neutrality  is  only  a  pretext  to  impose  these  laws  on 
her  by  force,  and  to  establish  a  hostile  alliance  against  her." 

Nothing,  however,  is  farther  from  the  above-mentioned  negotiation, 
than  the  principles  here  supposed.  It  is  founded  in  justice  and  modera- 
tion, and  the  communication  of  a  copy  of  the  convention  to  such  of 
the  belligerent  Powers  as  had  the  justice  and  patience  to  wait  for  the 
same,  will  prove  this  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  denial. 

When  in  the  beginning  of  January  the  Minister  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty  officially  proposed  to  the  undersigned,  the  question,  "whether 
the  northern  Courts  had  actually  concluded  the  confederation  which 
had  been  reported;  and  whether  Prussia  had  acceded  to  it?" — the  King 
conceived  that  the  respect  which  sovereigns  owe  to  each  other,  and 
the  liberty  possessed  by  every  independent  State  to  consult  its  own 
interests,  without  rendering  an  account  to  any  other  Power,  authorized 
him  to  withhold  any  communications  relative  to  himself  and  his  allies; 
and  contented  himself  with  answering,  that  as  he  had  seen,  without 
interfering,  the  connections  which  England  had  entered  into  without 
consulting  him,  he  considered  himself  entitled  to  the  same  confidence ; 
and  that  if  the  King  of  Great  Britain  thought  it  his  duty  to  support 
the  rights  and  interests  of  his  kingdom.  His  Prussian  Majesty  con- 
sidered it  as  not  less  his  duty  to  employ  every  means  in  the  defense 
of  the  rights  and  interests  of  his  subjects. 

This  answer  might  have  sufficed  a  few  weeks  since ;  but  in  the  situa- 
tion in  which  affairs  now  are,  the  King  thinks  himself  called  upon  to 
make  an  explicit  declaration  to  the  Court  of  London,  relative  to  the 
spirit  of  the  treaty,  which  has  probably  been  attacked  because  it  was 
not  known,  and  which  is  far  from  having  the  offensive  views  of  which 
the  contracting  Powers  have  been  arbitrarily  accused.  They  have 
expressly  agreed,  that  their  measures  shall  be  neither  hostile  nor  tend 
to  the  detriment  of  any  country,  but  only  have  for  their  object  the 
security  of  the  trade  and  navigation  of  their  subjects.  They  have  been 
attentive  to  adapt  their  new  connections  to  present  circumstances.  The 
strict  justice  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia  has,  even  in  the 
detail,  proposed  modifications,  which  alone  might  be  sufficient  to  indi- 
cate the  spirit  of  the  whole.  It  has  since  been  determined,  that  the 
treaty  shall  not  be  prejudicial  to  those  which  had  before  been  concluded 
with  any  of  the  belligerent  Powers.  It  was  also  resolved,  that  this 
determination  should  be  candidly  communicated  to  those  Powers,  to 


580  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

prove  the  purity  of  the  motives  and  views  of  the  contracting  Parties. 
But  England  would  not  allow  time  for  this ;  had  she  waited  this  con- 
fidential communication,  she  might  have  avoided  those  intemperate 
measures  which  threaten  to  spread  the  flames  of  war  still  wider. 

Besides,  it  only  depended  on  England,  previously  to  draw  satisfac- 
tory information  from  the  correspondence  with  Denmark,  if,  instead 
of  taking  hold  of  two  isolated  passages,  which  Lord  Carysfort,  in  his 
first  note,  extracted  from  Count  Bernstorfif's  note  of  the  31st  of  De- 
cember, the  Court  of  London  had  listened  to  the  solemn  declaration 
which  it  contained :  "That  it  could  never  have  been  supposed  for  a 
moment  that  Denmark  had  formed  hostile  projects  against  England, 
or  plans  that  could  not  subsist  together  with  the  maintenance  of 
harmony  between  the  two  Crowns,  and  that  the  Court  of  Copenhagen 
congratulated  itself  on  finding  an  opportunity  for  contradicting,  in 
the  most  positive  manner,  such  unfounded  reports."  This  plain  and 
precise  declaration  agrees  with  the  language  which  the  undersigned 
had  used  more  than  once  to  Lord  Carysfort,  when  speaking  on  that 
subject;  and  it  can  scarcely  be  conceived  how  the  English  Court,  after 
that  declaration  had  been  received,  could  conclude  from  the  note  of  the 
Minister  of  Denmark,  "That  the  engagements  of  the  contracting 
Powers  had  for  their  object  the  introduction  of  principles  of  naval 
rights,  which  had  never  been  acknowledged  by  the  tribunals  of  Europe, 
and  which  were  of  a  hostile  tendency  against  England."  The  conclu- 
sion is  totally  false,  and,  is  not  authorized  even  more  by  the  contents 
of  the  answer  of  the  Danish  Court,  than  the  other  unmerited  reproach 
made  to  it,  "of  having  renewed  an  alliance  of  a  hostile  tendency  against 
England,  and  of  being  actively  employed  in  armaments  with  that  view." 
Never  were  measures  more  evidently  defensive,  than  the  measures  of 
the  Court  of  Copenhagen,  and  their  spirit  will  be  misconceived  still  less, 
when  it  is  considered  what  menacing  demonstration  that  Court  had 
experienced  from  the  British  Government,  on  occasion  of  the  affair 
with  the  Freya  frigate,  before  the  above  measures  were  resorted  to. 
England's  arbitrary  conduct  on  this  occasion  is  naturally  explained  by 
the  pretensions  which  it  had  made  for  some  time  past,  and  which  it 
has  repeatedly  renewed  in  the  notes  of  Lord  Carysfort,  at  the  expense 
of  every  commercial  and  naval  Power.  The  British  Government  has, 
in  the  present  more  than  in  any  former  war,  usurped  the  sovereignty 
of  the  seas ;  and  by  arbitrarily  framing  a  naval  code,  which  it  would 
be  difficult  to  unite  with  the  tnie  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  it 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  581 

exercises,  over  the  other  friendly  and  neutral  Powers,  an  usurped 
jurisdiction,  the  legality  of  which  it  maintains,  and  which  it  considers 
as  an  imprescriptible  right,  sanctioned  by  all  the  tribunals  of  Europe. 
The  sovereigns  have  never  conceded  to  England  the  privilege  of  calling 
their  subjects  before  its  tribunals,  and  of  subjecting  them  to  its  laws, 
in  cases  where  the  abuse  of  power  has  got  the  better  of  equity,  and 
which,  alas !  are  but  too  frequent.  The  neutral  Powers  have  always 
had  the  precaution  of  addressing  to  it  the  most  energetic  reclamations 
and  protests,  but  experience  has  ever  proved  their  remonstrances  fruit- 
less ;  and  it  is  not  surprising,  that,  after  so  many  repeated  acts  of  op- 
pression, they  have  resolved  to  find  a  remedy  against  it,  and  for  that 
purpose  to  establish  a  well-arranged  convention,  which  fixes  their 
rights,  and  which  places  them  on  a  proper  level  even  with  the  Powers 
at  war. 

The  naval  alliance,  in  the  manner  as  it  has  just  been  consolidated, 
was  intended  to  lead  to  this  salutar}'  end,  and  the  King  hesitates  not 
to  declare  to  His  Britannic  Majesty,  that  he  has  again  found  in  it  his 
own  principles,  that  he  is  fully  convinced  of  its  necessity  and  utility, 
and  that  he  has  formally  acceded  to  the  convention,  which  has  been 
concluded  on  the  16th  of  December,  last  year,  between  the  Courts  of 
Russia,  Denmark,  and  Sweden.^  His  Majesty  is,  therefore,  among  the 
number  of  the  contracting  Parties,  and  has  bound  himself,  in  that 
quality,  not  only  to  take  a  direct  share  in  all  the  events  which  interest 
the  cause  of  the  neutral  Powers,  but  also,  in  virtue  of  his  engagements, 
to  maintain  that  connection  by  such  powerful  measures  as  the  impulse 
of  circumstances  may  require.  The  note  of  Lord  Carysfort  mentions 
a  subject,  to  which  His  Majesty  believes  himself  neither  obliged  to 
answer,  nor  even  to  have  a  right  of  entertaining  an  opinion  with  respect 
to  it.  There  exist  discussions  between  the  Courts  of  Petersburg  and 
London,  which  have  by  no  means  anything  to  do  with  the  business 
which  the  latter  has  interwoven  with  it.  But  in  the  same  measure  in 
which  the  conduct  of  Prussia  has  hitherto  been  directed  by  the  most 
blameless  impartiality,  the  King's  conduct  will  henceforth  be  directed 
by  his  regard  for  engagements,  which  in  themselves  are  a  proof  of  it. 
To  stipulations  which  contain  nothing  hostile,  and  which  the  safety  of 
his  subjects  required,  he  owes  all  the  means  which  Providence  has  laid 
in  his  power.  Unpleasant  as  the  extremes  may  be  to  which  England 
has  proceeded,  yet  His  Majesty  doubts  not  the  possibility  of  a  speedy 


K4nte,  pp.  531,  S37. 


582  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

return  to  conciliating  and  peaceable  dispositions,  and  he  relies  on  the 
sentiments  of  equity  which,  on  former  occasions,  he  has  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  meeting  with  in  His  Britannic  Majesty. 

It  is  only  by  revoking,  and  by  entirely  taking  off  the  embargo,  that 
affairs  can  be  brought  to  their  former  situation ;  and  it  is  for  England 
to  judge  whether  it  ought  to  come  to  tliat  resolution,  in  order  to  offer 
means  to  the  neutral  Powers  for  proceeding  to  those  communications 
which  they  intended  to  make. 

But  while  those  measures  exist,  which  have  been  resorted  to  from 
hatred  against  a  common  principle,  and  against  an  alliance  which  can 
no  longer  be  shaken,  the  hostile  resolution,  which  must  be  the  conse- 
quence, will  be  the  necessary  result  of  the  treaty ;  and  the  undersigned 
is  ordered  to  declare  to  the  Minister  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  that 
the  King,  while  he  expresses  his  concern  at  events  of  which  he  has  not 
been  the  cause,  will  secretly  fulfil  the  engagements  prescribed  to  him 
by  treaties.  The  undersigned,  thus  executing  his  orders,  has  the  honor 
of  assuring  Lord  Carysfort  of  his  high  esteem. 

Haugwitz 

I2t'li  February.  i8ot. 


Russian  Proclamation  interdicting  the  Transportation  of  Merchan- 
dise through  Prussia,  February  23,  180P 

His  Excellency  the  Civil  Governor  and  Counselor  of  State,  Chevalier 
von  Richter,  has  received  the  following  communication  from  the  Com- 
mercial College  of  the  Empire:  "That  His  Imperial  Majesty,  being 
convinced  by  experience,  that  the  productions  and  merchandise  of  his 
empire  were  exported  by  Prussia  into  England,  His  said  Majesty  has 
thought  proper  to  order,  that  the  transportation  of  these  productions 
and  merchandises  through  Prussia,  whether  by  land  or  sea,  shall  be 
severely  prohibited  ;  and  that,  in  order  to  accomplish  this  sovereign 
order,  the  most  severe  inspection  shall  take  place,  in  conformity  with 
the  ukase  of  the  15th  of  December,  1800.  The  Commercial  College  has, 
in   consequence,    required    all   civil    governors,   first,    to    communicate 


^Collectioji  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  238. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  583 

through  the  medium  of  the  magistrates,  this  order  to  the  body  of  the 
merchants ;  secondly,  to  order  the  magistrates  to  instruct  their  brokers 
to  insert,  as  a  stipulation  in  their  contract,  whether  made  with  foreign 
or  Russian  merchants,  that  the  articles  bought  or  sold  shall  not,  under 
any  pretence,  be  sent  into  Prussia  by  any  channel.  The  two  parties 
shall  bind  themselves  to  this.  The  magistrates  are  also  bound  to  suffer 
none  of  the  merchandises  to  pass  thither  on  any  pretence ;  and  if  any 
one  shall  refuse  to  obey  this  order,  they  are  to  seize  the  articles,  and 
to  send  advice  thereof  forthwith." 

In  consequence,  this  order,  after  being  transmitted  by  his  Excellency 
the  Civil  Governor  in  Council,  in  order  to  its  being  correctly  executed, 
is,  by  these  presents,  communicated  to  the  knowledge  of  all  the  mer- 
chants in  this  cit}^ 

Dated  Riga,  February  12,  1801} 


Note  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  the  British  Minister  regarding 
the  Embargo  on  Danish  Vessels- 

LoNDON,  February  2^,  1801. 
The  undersigned,  having  informed  the  King  his  master  of  the  official 
communication  of  Lord  Grenville,  dated  the  15th  January,  last,^  has 
received  orders  to  declare,  that  His  Majesty  is  deeply  affected  at  seeing 
the  good  understanding  which  has  hitherto  subsisted  between  Denmark 
and  Britain,  suddenly  interrupted  by  the  adoption  of  a  measure  as 
arbitrary  as  injurious  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain;  and  that  he  is  not 
less  afflicted  and  alarmed  at  seeing  that  measure  justified  by  assertions 
and  suppositions  as  unjust  as  ill  founded.  He  remarks,  with  surprise, 
that,  by  confounding  the  cause  of  the  measures  taken  in  Russia  against 
the  interests  of  Great  Britain,  with  the  object  of  the  convention  rela- 
tive to  neutral  navigation,  the  British  Government  evidently  mixes  two 
affairs  which  have  not  the  least  connection  with  each  other.  It  is  a 
subject  of  perfect  notoriety,  that  the  incident  of  the  occupation  of  Malta 
by  the  troops  of  His  Britannic  Majesty-,  has  alone  been  the  occasion  of 
the  embargo  on  the  British  ships  in  the  ports  of  Russia,  and  that  the 


^February  23,   1801,  new  style. 
^Ihid.,  p.  233. 
^Ante,  p.  559. 


584  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Ministers  of  the  neutral  Courts  at  Petersburg  acted  according  to  their 
full  powers  and  instructions  anterior  to  that  event.  The  dispute  relat- 
ing to  it  is  absolutely  foreign  to  the  Court  of  Copenhagen.  It  knows 
neither  its  origin  nor  foundation,  or  at  least  but  very  imperfectly,  and 
its  engagements  with  Petersburg  have  no  relation  whatever  to  it.  The 
nature  of  these  engagements  has  been  solemnly  declared  to  be  only 
defensive ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  how  general  principles,  conformable 
to  every  positive  obligation,  and  modified  according  to  the  stipulations  of 
treaties,  could  be  justly  considered  as  attacks  on  the  rights  or  dignity  of 
any  State  whatever.  While  the  Powers  who  profess  them  require  only 
their  acknowledgment,  the  conflict  of  principles  reciprocally  main- 
tained, can  not  be  provoked  but  by  those  means  which,  operating  as  a 
denial  of  facts,  place  them  in  direct  and  inevitable  opposition.  The 
undersigned,  by  order  of  the  King  his  master,  calls  the  serious  attention 
of  the  British  Government  to  these  reflections,  and  to  these  just  and 
incontrovertible  truths ;  they  are  analogous  to  the  loyal  sentiments  of 
a  sovereign,  the  ancient  and  faithful  ally  of  Great  Britain,  who  is  not 
only  incapable  of  offering,  on  his  part,  any  injuries  real  or  voluntary, 
but  who  has  well-founded  titles  to  a  return  of  forbearance  and  justice. 
The  prompt  cessation  of  proceedings  hostile  to  the  interests  of  Den- 
mark, is  a  circumstance  to  which  His  Majesty  still  looks  forward 
with  the  confidence  he  has  ever  wished  to  entertain  w^ith  regard  to  His 
Britannic  Majesty;  and  it  is  in  his  name,  and  conformably  to  the 
instructions  expressed  on  his  part,  that  the  undersigned  insists  on  the 
embargo  placed  on  the  Danish  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Great  Britain, 
being  immediately  taken  off.  By  a  constant  series  of  moderation  on 
the  part  of  the  King,  the  measures  to  which  the  outrageous  proceed- 
ings of  the  British  Government  authorized  him  to  have  had  recourse, 
have  been  suspended,  His  Majesty  deeming  it  an  act  of  glory  to  give, 
by  this  means,  a  decisive  proof  of  the  falsehood  of  the  suspicions 
advanced  against  him,  and  of  the  doubts  thrown  on  his  intentions.  But 
if,  contrar}'  to  all  expectation,  the  British  Government  persists  in  its 
violent  resolutions,  he  will  see  himself,  wnth  regret,  reduced  to  the 
urgent  necessity  of  exerting  those  means  which  his  dignity  and  the 
interests  of  his  subjects  will  imperiously  prescribe. 

Wedel-Jarlsberg 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  585 

Note  of  Count  Wedel-Jarlsberg  to  Lord  Hawkesbury,  British  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  regarding  the  Embargo  on 
Danish  Vessels^ 

London,  March  4,  1801. 
The  undersigned  has  constantly  reposed  an  unHmited  confidence  in 
the  sentiments  and  moderation  of  His  Britannic  Majesty.  He  has  con- 
sequently only  endeavored,  in  the  preliminary  note  of  Lord  Hawkes- 
bury, dated  the  25th  of  last  month,  in  answer  to  his  official  note  of  the 
23d,-  to  discover  the  expression  of  an  assurance  of  these  sentiments 
which  should  be  transmitted  to  Copenhagen ;  and  he  is  persuaded  that 
the  effect  of  them  on  the  part  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  will  be  mani- 
fested, by  calling,  in  the  most  effacious  and  satisfactory  manner,  the 
attention  of  the  Government  to  the  representations  of  His  Danish 
Majesty,  transmitted  through  the  organs  and  offices  of  the  undersigned. 
But  as  the  adoption  of  conciliatory  measures  is  constantly  found  sus- 
pended, and  as,  on  the  contrary,  those  of  violence  and  injustice  are 
daily  accumulating,  the  undersigned  can  not  acquiesce,  in  silence,  in  the 
continuation  of  this  state  of  things,  which  only  tends  to  bar  the  way 
to  amicable  explanations,  and  to  compromise  the  dearest  interests  of 
each  nation.  He  hastens,  in  consequence,  to  renew  with  earnestness, 
the  demand  made  in  the  name  of  his  Court,  that  the  embargo  placed 
on  the  Danish  vessels  should  be  immediately  taken  off.  And,  in  ex- 
pectation of  a  satisfactory  answer,  he  has  the  honor  to  assure  his 
Excellency  Lord  Hawkesbury  of  his  respectful  consideration. 

Wedel-Jarlsberg  . 


Note  of  Baron  Ehrensward  to  Lord  Hawkesbury  regarding  the  Em- 
bargo on  Sv^edish  Vessels,  March  4,  180P 

The  undersigned.  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Swedish  Majesty,, 
has  the  honor  to  transmit  to  his  Excellency  Lord  Hawkesbury,  first 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  234.  The  reply  of  March  6,  1801,  to  this 
note  is  merely  a  formal  acknowledgment.     Ibid.,  p.  235. 

^For  the  official  note  of  February  23,  see  ante,  p.  583.  The  preliminary  note 
of  the  25th  is  merely  a  formal  acknowledgment  of  the  same.  Collection  of  State 
Papers,  ibid.,  p.  234. 

^Ibid.,  p.  235. 


586  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Secretary  of  State  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  a  printed  copy  of  the 
naval  convention  concluded  on  the  16th  December,  1800,  between  His 
Swedish  Majesty  and  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias, 
as  well  as  a  printed  copy  of  the  naval  regulations  which  the  King  has 
recently  ordered  to  be  drawn  up.^ 

The  undersigned,  who,  at  the  command  of  his  Court,  has  the  honor 
to  make  this  communication  to  the  Minister  of  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
has  it  likewise  in  commission  expressly  to  declare,  that  Their  Majesties, 
by  the  said  naval  convention,  have  reciprocally  determined  and  settled 
those  rights  which,  as  neutral  Powers,  they  believe  themselves  entitled 
to,  and  by  the  naval  regulations  have  ascertained  those  duties,  for  the 
performance  and  observance  of  which,  on  the  part  of  their  subjects, 
they,  as  neutral  Powers,  make  themselves  answerable.  The  object  of 
Their  Majesties  is  to  confirm  and  strengthen  their  rights  of  neutrality, 
and  to  promote  the  repose  of  their  respective  States,  by  the  naval 
convention  they  have  entered  into;  and  nothing  is  farther  from  their 
intention  than  by  such  a  step  to  provoke  hostilities.  The  respect  which 
is  due  to  the  rights  of  nations  and  to  treaties,  the  consciousness  that 
their  own  interests  are  inseparably  united  with  the  interests  and  the 
love  of  justice  and  peace,  are  the  only  motives  by  which  Their  Majes- 
ties have  been  actuated :  they  have,  therefore,  learnt,  with  the  greatest 
astonishment,  that  the  first  news  of  the  conclusion  of  this  convention 
in  England,  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  violent  a  measure  as  that  of 
laying  an  embargo  on  the  Swedish  ships. 

So  far  from  desiring  to  introduce  any  innovations  with  respect  to 
the  maritime  State  of  Europe,  by  the  assertion  of  their  rights  of  neu- 
trality. Their  Majesties  are  sensible  that  it  gives  no  power  whatever 
where  those  rights  were  not  acknowledged  by  former  treaties.  England 
has  seen  those  treaties ;  England  has  seen  those  treaties  executed ;  they 
were  officially  communicated  to  her,  and  she  did  not  protest  against 
them.  In  like  manner  it  was,  with  regard  to  the  conventions  of  1780 
and  1781  ;  and  the  Ministry,  who  now  proceed  with  so  much  violence, 
know  that  the  partial  renewal  of  that  convention  between  Sweden  and 
Denmark  in  1794,^  and  the  armament  that  followed,  operated,  during 
a  period  of  three  years,  without  ever  being  considered  as  grounds  for 
hostilities;  yet  a  similar  convention  is  now  deemed  an  hostile  confed- 
eracy against  England.     A  line  of  conduct  so  contradictory,  proceeds 


^Ante,  pp.  531,  549. 

2Treaty  of  March  27.  1794.     Ante,  p.  440. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  587 

not  from  the  circumstance  of  the  principles  and  claims  of  neutral 
rights  having  been  now  enforced ;  but  it  seems  to  have  its  foundation 
in  that  maritime  system  which  England  has  established  in  the  course 
of  the  present  war.  It  appears  also,  that  that  Government,  which 
Europe,  from  its  pacific  sentiments,  has  so  often  endeavored  to  con- 
vince of  the  injustice  of  its  pretensions,  has  now  determined  to  com- 
mence a  war  for  the  subjection  of  the  sea,  after  it  has  rendered  itself 
so  renowned  in  the  war  undertaken  for  the  freedom  of  Europe. 

If  the  British  Minister  will  refer  to  the  conduct  of  England  against 
Sweden,  and  the  neutral  Powers  in  general,  during  this  war,  he  will 
find  the  real  cause  why  His  Swedish  Majesty  has  been  induced  to 
believe  that  the  formal  alliance  of  several  Powers,  acting  upon  the 
same  principles,  would  more  efifectually  tend  to  convince  the  Court  of 
London  of  the  validity  of  those  principles,  than  by  any  one  Power 
renewing  those  reclamations  which  have  hitherto  been  made  in  vain ;  at 
the  same  time  His  Majesty  never  supposed  that  such  an  alliance  would 
be  considered  as  an  act  of  hostility.  The  British  Minister  complains 
that  the  Court  of  London  was  not  before  instructed  of  the  intention 
of  the  respective  Courts  to  renew  the  convention  of  1780;  but  in  the 
same  note  he  states,  that  England  had  entered  into  engagements  [dur- 
ing] this  war  with  its  allies  respecting  neutrals ;  thus  the  avowal  of  the 
British  Minister  is  an  answer  to  his  own  charge. 

If  His  Majesty  was  not  fully  convinced  of  the  innocence  of  his 
intentions,  and  if  he  was  desirous  of  deviating  from  that  line  of 
moderation  he  has  ever  observed,  he  might  make  an  invidious  and 
censurable  enumeration  of  the  conduct  of  England;  of  the  unpunished 
oftenses  of  the  commanders  of  English  ships  of  war,  even  in  Swedish 
harbors ;  of  the  inquisitorial  examinations  f  to]  which  the  captains  and 
crews  of  the  ships  detained,  as  well  in  the  West  Indies  as  in  England, 
have  been  subject;  of  the  detention  of  the  convoy  in  1798;  of  the  de- 
ceitful chicanery  with  which  the  proceedings  of  the  courts  of  admiralty 
were  accompanied;  of  the  absolute  denial  of  justice  in  many  instances; 
and  lastly,  by  the  insult  ofiFered  to  the  Swedish  flag  at  Barcelona.  His 
Swedish  Majesty  must,  doubtless,  state  among  the  ofifenses  of  which 
he  has  cause  to  complain,  that  after  one  of  his  Ministers  had  been 
sent  to  the  British  Court,  its  aggressions,  instead  of  being  admitted 
and  remedied,  were  justified.  But  he  has  sought  no  revenge ;  His 
Majesty  wishes  only  to  procure  that  security  to  his  flag  to  which  it  is 
entitled.     In  consequence  of  this   sentiment,   the  undersigned   is  em- 


588  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

powered  to  declare,  that  the  British  Court  shall  acknowledge  the  rights 
of  Sweden;  that  it  shall  do  justice  with  regard  to  the  convoys  detained 
in  1798,  as  well  as  respecting  the  violence  offered  to  the  Swedish  flag 
at  Barcelona;  and  above  all,  that  it  shall  take  off  the  embargo  which 
has  been  so  unjustly  laid  on  the  Swedish  ships.  His  Majesty  will, 
with  the  greatest  pleasure,  see  his  ports  again  opened  to  the  trade  of 
England,  and  the  ancient  good  understanding  between  the  two  Courts 
renewed.  His  Majesty,  impressed  with  the  dignity  due  to  his  empire, 
has,  in  consequence  of  the  embargo  laid  upon  the  Swedish  ships,  placed 
a  similar  embargo  on  all  English  vessels  in  the  harbors  of  Sweden. 

As  the  pacific  tendency  of  the  present  convention  has  been  proved  to 
a  demonstration,  His  Majesty  therefore  hopes  that  no  consideration, 
respecting  any  accidental  occurrence  which  may  have  taken  place  be- 
tween the  ally  of  His  Alajesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia  and  the  Court 
of  London,  will  be  introduced.  The  act  of  the  convention  itself  proves, 
that  its  bases  are  the  rights  of  neutrality,  and  that  it  is  in  its  nature 
unconnected  with  evei"y  other  subject  of  dispute. 

While  the  undersigned  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  His  Sw^edish 
Majesty  recommends  the  contents  of  this  present  note  to  the  earnest 
consideration  of  the  Minister  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  he  has  the 
honor  to  entreat  that  his  Excellency  Lord  Hawkesbury  will  transmit 
him  an  answer,  which  he  hopes  will  speak  the  sentiments  of  the  King 
his  master. 

His  Majesty  has  commanded  the  undersigned  to  present  this  to  his 
Excellency.  Should  the  conciliatory  views  with  which  it  was  dictated 
prove  fruitless,  it  is  His  Majesty's  opinion,  that  the  presence  of  the 
undersigned  at  the  Court  of  London  will  no  longer  be  of  any  advantage. 

The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to  assure  his  Excellency  Lord 
Hawkesbury  of  his  highest  esteem. 

The  Baron  von  Ehrensward 

London,  March  4,  1801. 


Reply  of  Lord  Hawkesbury  to  Baron  Ehrensward,  March  7,  1801^ 

The  undersigned.  His  Majesty's  principal   Secretary  of   State   for 
Foreign  Affairs,  has  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  note 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  238. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  589 

of  Baron  Ehrensward,  His  Swedish  Majesty's  Minister  Plenipotentiary, 
of  the  date  of  the  4th  instant,^  His  Majesty  has  already  repeatedly 
communicated  his  fixed  unalterable  determination  to  maintain  those 
established  principles  of  maritime  law  which  have  been  found,  by  the 
experience  of  ages,  best  calculated  to  afford  equal  security  to  the  just 
rights  and  interests,  as  well  of  neutral  as  of  belligerent  Powers. 

The  explanations  attempted  to  be  given  to  the  present  convention, 
have  in  no  degree  weakened  the  impression  which  the  first  perusal  of 
it  produced,  that  the  views  and  motives  of  the  contracting  Powers  were 
hostile  to  His  Majesty's  dominions;  and  this  impression  is  most  fully 
confirmed  by  the  consideration,  that  the  northern  Courts  have  recurred 
to  the  principles  of  the  convention  of  1780  at  a  moment  when  the 
circumstances  of  the  war  and  the  relative  state  of  the  navies  of  the 
belligerent  Powers,  convert  that  which  was  pretended  to  be  a  measure 
of  common  equity  to  all  countries,  into  an  instrument  of  exclusive 
injury  to  Great  Britain. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  embargo  on  Swedish  vessels  can  be 
considered  in  no  other  view  than  as  an  act  of  just  and  necessary 
precaution,  which  will  not  be  revoked  so  long  as  the  Court  of  Stock- 
holm contmues  to  form  a  part  of  a  confederacy  which  has  for  its 
object  to  impose  by  force  on  His  Majesty  a  new  system  of  maritime 
law,  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  and  independence  of  his  Crown,  and 
the  rights  and  interests  of  his  people. 

The  undersigned  requests  Baron  Ehrensward  will  accept  the  assur- 
ances of  his  high  consideration. 

Hawkesbury 

Downing  Street,  March  y,  i8oi. 


Manifesto  of  His  Highness  Prince  Charles,  March  28,  1801,  regard- 
ing the  Danish  Occupation  of  the  City  of  Hamburg- 

By  the  express  command  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and 
Norway,  it  is  hereby  declared : 

The  attacks  made  by  the  English  Government,  in  opposition  to  all 
the  principles  of  the  laws  of  nations,  against  the  navigation  and  trade 


->-Ante,  p.  585. 

-Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  242. 


590  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  those  Powers  that  have  confederated  together  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  and  maintaining  the  rights  of  neutral  flags ;  and  the  arbitrary 
and  powerful  measures  adopted  by  that  Government,  notwithstanding 
the  most  pressing  and  continued  remonstrances ;  have  imposed  on  these 
Powers  the  disagreeable  necessity  of  taking  every  previous  step  that 
may  serve  to  bring  the  said  Government  to  a  more  just  way  of  thinking. 

As  the  exclusion  of  the  English  navigation  and  trade  from  the  Elbe, 
must  be  an  effectual  means  of  promoting  this  object;  and  as  the  pos- 
session, for  a  time,  of  the  Imperial  city  of  Hamburg  has  been  con- 
sidered as  unavoidably  necessary  for  that  purpose;  His  Danish 
Majesty,  unwilling  as  he  is  to  adopt  a  measure  of  this  kind,  has  been 
obliged  to  give  w'ay  to  a  crowd  of  imperious  circumstances ;  and  conse- 
quently has  charged  me  to  carry  the  measure  into  execution  with  the 
troops  under  my  command. 

Conformably  to  the  positive  orders  enjoined  me,  I  will  most  vigilantly 
take  care,  that  the  strictest  discipline  shall  be  observed  by  the  troops 
that  enter  the  city,  while  they  remain  there ;  and  that  the  tranquillity, 
the  property,  and  municipal  rights  of  the  inhabitants  shall  not  only  be 
undisturbed  and  unmolested,  but  that  the  same  shall  be  most  carefully 
preserved  and  guarded  for  them.  I  expect,  therefore,  that  all  persons 
shall  conduct  themselves  peaceably  and  friendly  towards  the  royal 
troops  commanded  by  me ;  and  that  nobody  shall  find  fault  with  that 
necessary  severity  which  must  be  put  in  force  in  case  of  a  contrary 
behavior. 


Charles.  Prince  of  Hesse 


PiNNEBERG,  March  28,  1801. 


Proclamation  of  the  Senate  of  Hamburg  regarding  the  Danish  Oc- 
cupation of  the  City,  March  29,  1801^ 

As  circumstances  of  a  political  nature  have  created  the  necessity  for 
the  Imperial  Danish  troops  to  remain  in  the  neighborhood  of  this  city, 
and  as  nothing  is  to  be  apprehended  on  that  account,  either  with  respect 
to  the  freedom  and  independence  of  the  State,  or  the  property  and 
safety  of  the  inhabitants ;  therefore  the  most  illustrious  Senate  exhort 


^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  242. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  591 

all  citizens  and  inhabitants  to  confide  in  their  pressing  intercessions 
upon  the  occasion ;  and  that,  with  the  assistance  of  the  College  of  Citi- 
zens, they  will  do  their  utmost  for  the  advantage  and  safety  of  the 
State.  And  the  most  illustrious  Senate  trust  that  every  one  will  demean 
himself  peaceably  and  obediently,  and  especially  with  decency  and 
propriety  towards  the  foreign  military ;  by  which  alone  the  general 
safety  can  be  ensured,  and  those  inconveniences  avoided,  to  which  any 
inconsiderate  and  opposite  conduct  would  inevitably  subject  the  city. 
Given  at  our  Senate-house,  the  29th  March  1801. 


Ordinance   of   the    King   of   Denmark  laying   an    Embargo    upon 
English  Vessels,  March  29,  180P 

With,  Christian  VII  etc.,  make  known :  Whereas  all  the  measures 
and  friendly  efforts  to  secure  the  lifting  of  the  embargo  placed  upon 
the  vessels  and  goods  of  our  subjects  within  English  ports,  have  been 
unsuccessful,  we  have  found  ourselves  under  the  necessity  of  order- 
ing by  the  present  notification,  that  all  vessels  and  goods  belonging  to 
subjects  of  the  British  Government  being  within  our  ports,  be  imme- 
diately seized  and  held.  In  order  to  put  this  embargo  into  execution, 
it  shall  devolve  upon  all  the  magistrates  in  his  cities  and  in  the  rural 
regions  to  extend  armed  assistance,  in  the  most  effective  manner,  to 
the  employes  of  the  customs  and  others  who  may  discover  such  ves- 
sels and  goods.  With  regard  to  keeping  the  seized  vessels  and  goods 
in  good  condition,  the  magistrates  and  the  employes  of  the  customs 
are  ordered  to  do  all  that  which  is  necessar}%  and  subsequently,  meas- 
ures shall  be  adopted  with  regard  to  the  care  to  be  bestowed  upon  the 
crews.     Everyone  shall  conform  to  the  foregoing. 

Given  at  our  royal  residence  in  Copenhagen,  March  29,  1801. 


^Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  236.  These  reprisals  and  the  departure  of 
the  English  ministers  were  soon  followed  by  effective  hostilities,  and  the  En- 
glish fleet  having  forced  the  entrance  to  the  Sound,  March  30,  there  took  place, 
April  2d,  a  bloody  battle  before  Copenhagen  which  ended  during  the  same  day, 
in  Europe,  the  war  between  these  two  Powers.  A  first  armistice  concluded 
for  the  period  of  twenty-four  hours,  then  extended  indefinitely,  was  followed, 
April  9th.  by  a  truce  for  the  period  of  fourteen  weeks.  The  Copenhagen  Court 
has  had  officially  published  the  substance  of  the  negotiations  which  preceded 
that  armistice.     Ibid.,  p.  237. 


592  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Declaration  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  March  30,  1801,  to  the  Royal  and 
Electoral  College  at  Hanover  and  to  the  Commanders  of  the 
Hanoverian  Troops  regarding  Measures  to  be  taken  in  Defense 
of  the  Armed  Neutrality^ 

In  consequence  of  the  oppressions  which  neutral  navigation  and  com- 
merce have  sustained  on  the  part  of  the  English  navy,  since  the  com- 
mencement of  this  war,  the  diii'erent  Powers  therein  interested  could 
no  longer  abstain,  after  so  many  ineffectual  complaints,  from  protecting 
their  violated  rights  with  a  greater  degree  of  energy. 

The  result  was  the  convention  formed  on  the  16th  of  December,  1800, 
at  St.  Petersburg,  between  Russia,  Denmark  and  Sweden,-  the  just 
and  moderate  principles  of  which  had  formerly  been  adopted  and 
followed  by  the  Court  of  London  itself;  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Prussia,  who  had  likewise  felt  this  violence  injurious  to  his  States 
and  his  flag,  did  not  hesitate  to  accede  to  that  treaty. 

The  contracting  Courts  were  on  the  point  of  communicating  to  the 
belligerent  Powers  the  convention  they  had  agreed  to,  and  of  forming- 
arrangements  with  them,  when  England,  by  an  unexpected  proceeding, 
disconcerted  this  amicable  design,  by  laying  an  embargo  on  all  the 
vessels  of  the  naval  Powers  of  the  north  in  her  ports,  and  thus  declaring 
herself  their  enemy. 

It  might  have  been  expected  that  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia 
would  not  regard  this  conduct  with  satisfaction  or  indiflference.  Ac- 
cordingly he  soon  after  transmitted  to  the  Court  of  London  the  declara- 
tion already  known,  of  the  12th  of  February,^  formally  and  publicly 
avowing  his  accession  to  the  convention  of  St.  Petersburg,  and  indicat- 
ing, at  the  same  time,  the  means  by  which  the  differences  that  had 
taken  place  might  be  accommodated,  and  a  total  rupture  avoided. 

But,  instead  of  adopting  the  proposed  expedient,  England  passed 
over  in  silence  the  answer  transmitted  to  Lord  Carvsfort,  at  Berlin. 
She  continued  to  treat  the  flags  of  the  north  in  a  hostile  manner ;  and 
in  a  note  transmitted  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  Lord  Hawkesburv'.  to 
the  Swedish  Envoy,  Baron  Ehrensward,  dated  the  7th  of  March,*  at 
London,  she  has  once  more  manifested  those  false  principles  which 
have  been  so  often  refuted : 


'^Collection  of  State  Papers,  vol.  11,  p.  243. 
-Ante,  pp.  531,  537. 
^Ante,  p.  578. 
*Ante,  p.  588. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  593 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  embargo  on  Swedish  vessels  can 
be  considered  in  no  other  view  than  as  an  act  of  just  and  necessary 
precaution,  which  will  not  be  revoked,  so  long  as  the  Court  of 
Stockholm  continues  to  form  a  part  of  a  confederacy,  which  has 
for  its  object,  to  impose  by  force  on  His  Majesty  a  new  system 
of  maritime  law,  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  and  independence 
of  his  Crown,  and  the  rights  and  interests  of  his  people. 

A  similar  declaration  was  soon  after  sent  to  the  Court  of  Denmark, 
adding,  that  she  must  abandon  the  coalition  of  the  north,  and  enter 
into  a  separate  negotiation  with  England.  After  receiving  a  negative 
answer,  the  English  Charge  d'Afifaires,  Drummond,  and  the  Pleni- 
potentiary Extraordinary,  Vansittart,  left  Copenhagen  on  the  same 
day;  and  in  the  mean  time  the  English  fleet,  under  the  orders  of 
Admiral  Sir  Hyde  Parker,  destined  for  tlie  Baltic  Sea,  had  actually 
arrived  on  the  coasts  of  Zealand. 

It  appears  from  all  these  events,  that  the  Court  of  London  has  no 
inclination  to  desist  from  her  inadmissible  demands,  and  accept  the 
proposed  means  of  amicable  conciliation.  His  Majesty  the  King  of 
Prussia  therefore  feels  himself  compelled,  in  conformity  to  the  obliga- 
tions he  has  contracted,  to  take  the  most  efificacious  measures  in  support 
of  the  convention  attacked,  and  to  retaliate  for  the  hostile  proceedings 
against  it :  for  this  purpose,  he  will  not  only  shut  the  mouths  of  the 
Elbe,  and  Weser,  and  the  Ems,  but  likewise  take  possession  of  the 
States  belonging  to  His  Majesty  the  King  of  England,  as  Elector  of 
Brunswick  Liineberg,  situate  in  Germany. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  accordingly  demands  and  expects 
from  the  Electoral  College  of  Privy  Councilors  at  Hanover,  and  from 
the  Board  of  Generals,  that  they  will  submit  to  this  disposition  without 
delay  or  reply ;  and  that  they  will  voluntarily  obey  the  orders  w^hich 
shall  be  given  relative  to  the  occupation  of  the  electorate  by  the  Prus- 
sian troops,  and  likewise  with  respect  to  the  electoral  countries.  His 
Majesty  principally  demands  that  the  Hanoverian  corps  which  has 
hitherto  occupied  part  of  the  northern  line  of  demarcation,  shall  be 
disarmed  and  be  disbanded,  with  a  proportional  part  of  the  other  troops. 
His  Majesty  requires  that  the  generals  and  other  officers  shall  engage 
in  writing,  not  to  serve  against  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  to  follow  strictly  his  orders  until  the  present  affair 
be  brought  to  a  conclusion.  The  troops  which  shall  continue  embodied, 
shall  be  cantoned,  part  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Leine,  and  part  on  the 


594  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

left  bank  of  the  Aller,  and  behind  the  Luhe  as  far  as  the  Elbe,  where 
they  shall  remain  distributed  among  the  towns  of  Hanover.  Gifhorn. 
Belgern,  Liineberg,  and  the  other  smaller  towns  and  villages  of  that 
district.  All  the  other  places,  including  the  fortress  of  Hameln,  shall 
be  delivered  up  to  the  Prussian  troops,  under  the  orders  of  Lieutenant 
General  Klein. 

His  Majesty  declares,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Prussian  troops 
shall  be  subsisted  at  the  expense  of  the  electoral  territory,  commencing 
from  the  end  of  the  month  of  April.  His  Majesty  has  sent  his  Cabinet 
Minister,  Count  Schullenburg,  to  notify  the  present  declaration  to  the 
Electoral  College  of  Privy  Councilors  and  commanders  of  troops.  In 
these  circumstances,  all  connection  between  the  Electoral  College  and 
His  Majesty  the  King  of  England  will  cease;  and  the  authorities  are, 
in  consequence,  responsible  to  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  for 
their  administration  and  the  revenues.  In  case,  as  it  is  to  be  hoped, 
of  a  voluntary  submission,  His  Majesty  is  disposed,  and  ready  to  prom- 
ise solemnl}',  as  well  to  the  nobility  as  to  the  burgesses  and  to  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  electorate,  the  complete  enjoyment  of  tranquillity, 
and  the  security  of  their  property. 

But,  on  the  contrary,  should  the  Government  and  the  general  officers 
attempt  to  impede  the  execution  of  the  measures  taken,  and  oppose  the 
entrance  of  the  Prussian  troops.  His  Majesty  would  be  obliged,  though 
against  his  inclination,  to  revoke  his  promises,  and  to  treat  the  Electoral 
States  in  a  hostile  manner.  The  civil  and  military  officers  are  there- 
fore responsible  for  the  fatal  consequences  which  may  in  this  case 
result  from  their  conduct.  For  this  reason  His  Majesty  advises  them 
to  submit  to  this  summons,  and  to  prevent  the  rigorous  measures  which 
will  inevitably  be  adopted  in  case  of  a  refusal. 

By  order  of  His  Majesty, 

Berlin,  March  30,  180T. 

Haugwitz 


Instructions  from  the  British  Admiralty  to  Admiral  Dickson,  re- 
garding the  Seizure  of  Swedish  Vessels  in  the  Harbor  of  Oster 
Risoer,  April  3,  180P 

Whereas  we  transmitted  to  Lord  Grenville  late  one  of  His  Majesty's 
principal  Secretaries  of  State  your  letter  to  our  Secretary  dated  the 


iThorvald  Boye,  op.  cit.,  p.  359. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  595 

16  of  last  month  with  letter  which  accompanied  it  from  Captain 
John  Hampstead  commander  of  His  Majesty's  ship  Squirrel  repre- 
senting that  in  pursuance  of  the  orders  he  had  received  from  you  to 
proceed  to  the  coast  of  Norway  and  knowing  there  were  several  ves- 
sels in  the  harbor  of  Oster  Risoer  he  had  entered  the  said  harbor 
and  on  the  next  morning  had  brought  away  the  Swedish  vessels  named 
in  the  margin;  and  whereas  Lord  Hawkesbury  (who  hath  succeeded 
his  Lordship)  hath  by  his  letter  of  the  27  instant  signified  to  us 
His  Majesty's  pleasure  that  the  four  ships  and  vessels  above  men- 
tioned belonging  to  the  subjects  of  His  Swedish  Majesty  should  be 
immediately  released  and  be  allowed  to  return  with  their  masters  and 
crews  to  the  ports  from  whence  they  were  brought  away ;  we  do  in 
pursuance  of  His  Majesty's  pleasure  signified  to  us  as  above  mentioned 
hereby  require  and  direct  you  to  cause  the  said  Swedish  vessels  to  be 
forthwith  released  and  allowed  to  return  to  the  ports  from  whence 
they  were  brought  away  and  to  furnish  them  with  the  necessary  pass- 
ports for  that  purpose  and  also  to  signify  to  Captain  Hampstead  His 
Majesty's  disapprobation  of  his  proceedings  on  that  occasion  in  the 
strongest  terms. 

Given  the  3  April,  180L 

W.  Eliot 
L    Ironbridge 
To  J.  Markham 

Archibald  Dickson,  Esq., 

Admiral  of  the  Blue  No.   Yarmouth. 


Convention  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to  Neutral 
Trade,  June  17,  180P 

In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Indivisible  Trinity. 

The  mutual  desire  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias, 
and  of  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  being  not  only  to  come  to  an  understanding  between 
themselves  with  respect  to  the  differences  which  have  lately  inter- 
rupted the  good  understanding  and  friendly  relations  which  subsisted 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  post,  p. 


596  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

between  the  two  States ;  but  also  to  pre\  ent,  by  frank  ancr  precise  ex- 
planations upon  the  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects,  the  re- 
newal of  similar  altercations  and  troubles  which  might  be  the  conse- 
quence of  them ;  and  the  common  object  of  the  solicitude  of  Their 
said  Majesties  being  to  settle,  as  soon  as  can  be  done,  an  equitable  ar- 
rangement of  those  differences,  and  an  invariable  determination  of 
their  principles  upon  the  rights  of  neutrality,  in  their  application  to 
their  respective  monarchies,  in  order  to  unite  more  closely  the  ties  of 
friendship  and  good  intercourse,  of  which  they  acknowledge  the  utility 
and  the  benefits,  have  named  and  chosen  for  their  plenipotentiaries, 
yiz. : 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias.  Sieur  Nikita  Count  de 
Panin,  his  Privy  Councilor,  Minister  of  State  for  the  Department  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  present  Chamberlain,  Knight  Grand  Cross  of  the 
Order  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and  of  St.  Anne  of  the  First  Class, 
of  that  of  St.  Ferdinand,  and  of  Merit,  of  the  Red  Eagle,  and  of  St. 
Lazarus ;  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland,  AUeyne  Lord  Baron  St.  Helens.  His  said  Majesty's 
Privy  Councilor  and  his  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Plenipoten- 
tiary to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias ;  who,  after  having 
communicated  their  respective  full  powers,  and  found  them  in  good  and 
due  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  following  points  and  articles : 

Article  1 

There  shall  be  hereafter  between  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the 
Russians  and  His  Britannic  Majesty,  their  subjects,  the  States  and 
countries  under  their  dominion,  good  and  unalterable  friendship  and 
understanding,  and  all  the  political,  commercial,  and  other  relations 
of  common  utility  between  the  respective  subjects,  shall  subsist  as 
formerly,  without  their  being  disturbed  or  troubled  in  any  manner 
whatever. 

Article  2 

The  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Britannic  Majesty  declare, 
that  they  will  watch  over  the  most  rigorous  execution  of  the  prohibi- 
tions against  the  trade  of  contraband  of  their  subjects  with  the  ene- 
mies of  either  of  the  two  high  contracting  Parties. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  597 


Article  3 


His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Britannic  Majesty, 
having  resolved  to  place  under  a  sufficient  safeguard  the  freedom  of 
commerce  and  navigation  of  their  subjects,  in  case  one  of  them  shall 
be  at  war,  whilst  the  other  shall  be  neuter,  have  agreed : 

1.  That  the  ships  of  the  neutral  Power  may  navigate  freely  to  the 
ports,  and  upon  the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war. 

2.  That  the  effects  embarked  on  board  neutral  ships  shall  be  free, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  and  of  enemy's  property; 
and  it  is  agreed  not  to  comprise  under  the  denomination  of  the  latter 
the  merchandise  of  the  produce,  growth,  or  manufacture  of  the  coun- 
tries at  war,  which  should  have  been  acquired  by  the  subjects  of  the 
neutral  Power,  and  should  be  transported  for  their  account,  which 
merchandise  can  not  be  excepted  in  any  case  from  the  freedom  granted 
to  the  flag  of  the  said  Power. 

3.  That  in  order  to  avoid  all  equivocation  and  misunderstanding  of 
what  ought  to  be  considered  as  contraband  of  war,  His  Imperial 
Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Britannic  Majesty  declare,  con- 
formably to  Article  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded  between 
the  two  Crowns,  on  the  10th  (21st)  February,  1797,^  that  they  ac- 
knowledge as  such  the  following  articles  only,  viz. :  cannons,  mortars, 
firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  balls,  bullets,  firelocks,  flints, 
matches,  gunpowder,  saltpetre,  sulphur,  cuirasses,  pikes,  swords, 
>word-belts,  knapsacks,  saddles  and  bridles,  excepting,  however,  the 
quantity  of  the  said  articles  which  may  be  necessary  for  the  defense 
of  the  ship,  and  those  v^dio  compose  the  crew;  and  all  other  articles 
whatever  not  enumerated  here  shall  not  be  reputed  warlike  and  naval 
stores,  nor  be  subject  to  confiscation,  and  of  course  shall  pass  freely, 
without  being  subjected  to  the  smallest  difficulty,  unless  they  be  con- 
sidered enemy's  property  in  the  sense  above  specified. 

It  is  also  agreed,  that  that  which  is  stipulated  in  the  present  article 
shall  not  be  prejudicial  to  the  particular  stipulations  of  one  or  the  other 
Crown  with  other  Powers,  by  which  articles  of  a  similar  kind  should 
be  reserved,  prohibited,  or  permitted. 

4.  That  in  order  to  determine  what  characterizes  a  blockaded  port, 
that  denomination  is  given  only  to  a  port  where  there  is,  by  the  dis- 
positions of  the  Power  which  attacks  it  with  ships,  stationary  or  suffi- 
ciently near,  an  evident  danger  in  entering. 

^Anfe,  p.  445. 


598  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

5.  That  the  ships  of  the  neutral  Power  shall  not  be  stopped  but 
upon  just  causes  and  evident  facts:  that  they  be  tried  without  delay, 
and  that  the  proceeding  be  always  uniform,  prompt,  and  legal. 

In  order  the  better  to  ensure  the  respect  due  to  these  stipulations, 
dictated  by  the  sincere  desire  of  conciliating  every  interest,  and  to 
give  a  new  proof  of  their  uprightness  and  love  of  justice,  the  high 
contracting  Parties  enter  here  into  the  most  fonnal  engagement  to  re- 
new the  severest  prohibitions  to  their  captains,  whether  of  ships  of 
war  or  merchantmen,  to  take,  keep  or  conceal,  on  board  their  ships, 
any  of  the  articles  which,  in  the  terms  of  the  present  convention,  may 
be  reputed  contraband,  and  respectively  to  take  care  of  the  execution 
of  the  orders  which  they  shall  have  published  in  their  admiralties,  and 
wherever  it  shall  be  necessary. 

Article  4 

The  two  high  contracting  Parties,  wishing  also  to  prevent  all  sub- 
ject of  dissension  in  future,  by  limiting  the  right  of  search  of  mer- 
chant ships  going  under  convoy,  to  those  cases  only,  in  which  the  bel- 
ligerent Power  might  experience  a  real  prejudice  by  the  abuse  of  the 
neutral  flag,  have  agreed : 

1.  That  the  right  of  searching  merchant  ships  belonging  to  the  sub- 
jects of  one  of  the  contracting  Powers,  and  navigating  under  convoy 
of  a  ship  of  war  of  the  said  Power,  shall  only  be  exercised  by  ships 
of  war  of  the  belligerent  Party,  and  shall  never  extend  to  letters  of 
marque,  privateers,  or  other  vessels,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  imperial 
or  royal  fleet  of  Their  Majesties,  but  which  their  subjects  shall  have 
fitted  out  for  war. 

2.  That  the  proprietors  of  all  merchant  ships  belonging  to  the  sub- 
jects of  one  of  the  contracting  Sovereigns,  which  shall  be  destined  to 
sail  under  convoy  of  a  ship  of  war,  shall  be  required,  before  they  re- 
ceive their  sailing  orders,  to  produce  to  the  commander  of  the  convoy, 
their  passports  and  certificates,  or  sea  letters,  in  the  form  annexed  to 
the  present  treaty.^ 

3.  That  when  such  ship  of  war,  having  under  convoy  merchant 
ships,  shall  be  met  with  by  a  ship  or  ships  of  war  of  the  other  con- 
tracting Party,  who  shall  then  be  in  a  state  of  war,  in  order  to  avoid 
all  disorder,  they  shall  keep  out  of  cannon  shot,  unless  the  state  of  the 
sea,  or  the  place  of  meeting,  render  a  nearer  approach  necessary;  and 

^Post,  p.  602. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  599 

the  commander  of  the  ship  of  the  belHgerent  Power  shall  send  a  boat 
on  board  the  convoy,  where  they  shall  proceed  reciprocally  to  the 
verification  of  the  papers  and  certificates  that  are  to  prove  on  one 
part,  that  the  ship  of  war  is  authorized  to  take  under  its  escort  such 
or  such  merchant  ships  of  its  nation,  laden  with  such  a  cargo,  and 
for  such  a  port ;  on  the  other  part,  that  the  ship  of  war  of  the  belliger- 
ent Party  belongs  to  the  imperial  or  royal  fleet  of  Their  Majesties. 

4.  This  verification  made,  no  search  shall  take  place,  if  the  papers 
are  found  in  form,  and  if  there  exists  no  good  motive  for  suspicion. 
In  the  contrary  case,  the  commander  of  the  neutral  ship  of  war  (being 
duly  required  thereto  by  the  commander  of  the  ship  or  ships  of  war 
of  the  belligerent  Power)  is  to  bring  to  and  detain  his  convoy  during 
the  time  necessary  for  the  search  of  the  ships  which  compose  it,  and 
he  shall  have  the  faculty  of  naming  and  delegating  one  or  more  offi- 
cers to  assist  at  the  search  of  the  said  ships,  which  shall  be  done  in 
his  presence,  on  board  each  merchant  ship,  conjointly  with  one  or 
more  officers  appointed  by  the  commander  of  the  ship  of  the  belligerent 
Party. 

5.  If  it  happen  that  the  commander  of  the  ship  or  ships  of  the 
Power  at  war,  having  examined  the  papers  found  on  board,  and  having 
interrogated  the  master  and  crew  of  the  ship,  shall  see  just  and  suffi- 
cient reason  to  detain  the  merchant  ship  in  order  to  proceed  to  an 
ulterior  search,  he  shall  notify  such  intention  to  the  commander  of  the 
convoy,  who  shall  have  the  power  to  order  an  officer  to  remain  on 
board  the  ship  thus  detained,  and  to  assist  at  the  examination  of  the 
cause  of  her  detention.  The  merchant  ship  shall  be  carried  immedi- 
ately to  the  nearest  and  most  convenient  port  belonging  to  the  bellige- 
rent Power,  and  the  ulterior  search  shall  be  carried  on  with  all  possible 
diligence. 

Article  5 

It  is  in  like  manner  agreed,  that  if  any  merchant  ship  thus  convoyed 
should  be  detained  without  just  and  sufficient  cause,  the  commander 
of  the  ship  or  ships  of  war  of  the  belligerent  Power  shall  not  only  be 
boimd  to  make  to  the  owners  of  the  ship  and  of  the  cargo,  a  full  and 
perfect  compensation  for  all  the  losses,  expenses,  damages,  and  costs, 
occasioned  by  such  a  detention,  but  shall  moreover  undergo  an  ulterior 
punishment  for  ever}'-  act  of  violence,  or  other  fault  which  he  may 
have  committed,  according  as  the  nature  of  the  case  may  require.     On 


600  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

the  other  hand  the  convoying  ship  shall  not  be  permitted,  under  any 
pretext  whatsoever,  to  resist  by  force  the  detention  of  the  merchant 
ship  or  ships  by  the  ship  or  ships  of  war  of  the  belligerent  Power; 
an  obligation  to  which  the  commander  of  a  ship  of  war  with  convoy 
is  not  bound  to  observe  towards  letters  of  marque  and  privateers. 

Article  6 

The  high  contracting  Parties  shall  give  precise  and  efficacious  or- 
ders, that  the  judgments  upon  prizes  made  at  sea  shall  be  conformable 
with  the  rules  of  the  most  exact  justice  and  equity ;  that  they  shall  be 
given  by  judges  above  suspicion,  and  who  shall  not  be  interested  in 
the  affair  in  question.  The  government  of  the  respective  States  shall 
take  care  that  the  said  decisions  shall  be  speedily  and  duly  executed, 
according  to  the  forms  prescribed.  And  in  case  of  an  unfounded  de- 
tention, or  other  contravention  to  the  regulations  stipulated  by  the 
present  article,  the  owners  of  such  ship  and  cargo  shall  be  allowed 
damages  proportioned  to  the  loss  occasioned  thereby.  The  rules  to 
observe  for  these  damages,  and  for  the  case  of  unfounded  detention, 
as  also  the  principles  to  follow  for  the  purpose  of  accelerating  the 
process,  shall  be  the  matter  of  additional  articles,  which  the  contract- 
ing Parties  agree  to  settle  between  them,  and  which  shall  have  the 
same  force  and  validity  as  if  they  were  inserted  in  the  present  act. 
For  this  effect,  Their  Imperial  and  Britannic  Majesties  mutually  en- 
gage to  put  their  hand  to  the  salutary  work,  which  may  serve  for  the 
completion  of  these  stipulations,  and  to  communicate  to  each  other, 
without  delay,  the  views  which  may  be  suggested  to  them  by  their 
equal  solicitude  to  prevent  the  least  grounds  for  dispute  in  future. 

Article  7 

To  obviate  all  the  inconveniences  which  may  arise  from  the  bad 
faith  of  those  who  avail  themselves  of  the  flag  of  a  nation  without 
belonging  to  it,  it  is  agreed  to  establish  for  an  inviolable  rule,  that 
any  vessel  whatever,  in  order  to  be  considered  as  the  property  of  the 
country,  the  flag  of  which  it  carries,  must  have  on  board  the  captain 
of  the  ship,  and  one-half  of  the  crew  of  the  people  of  that  country, 
and  the  papers  and  passports  in  due  and  perfect  form ;  but  every 
vessel  which  shall  not  observe  this  rule,  and  which  shall  infringe  the 
ordinances  published  on  that  head,  shall  lose  all  rights  to  the  protec- 
tion of  the  contracting  Powers. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  601 

Article  S 

The  principles  and  measures  adopted  by  the  present  act  shall  be 
alike  applicable  to  all  the  maritime  wars  in  which  one  of  the  two 
Powers  may  be  engaged,  whilst  the  other  remains  neutral.  These 
stipulations  shall  in  consequence  be  regarded  as  permanent,  and  shall 
serve  for  a  constant  rule  to  the  contracting  Powers  in  matters  of 
commerce  and  navigation. 

Article  9 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark,  and  His  Majesty  the  King  ol 
Sweden,  shall  be  immediately  invited  by  His  Imperial  Majesty,  in  the 
name  of  the  two  contracting  Parties,  to  accede  to  the  present  conven- 
tion, and  at  the  same  time  to  renew  and  confirm  their  respective 
treaties  of  commerce  with  His  Britannic  Majesty ;  and  His  said  Ma- 
jesty engages,  by  acts  which  shall  have  established  that  agreement, 
to  render  and  restore  to  each  of  these  Powers,  all  the  prizes  that 
have  been  taken  from  them,  as  well  as  the  territories  and  countries 
under  their  Dominion,  which  have  been  conquered  by  the  arms  of 
His  Britannic  Majesty  since  the  rupture,  in  the  state  in  which  those 
possessions  were  found  at  the  period  at  which  the  troops  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty  entered  them.  The  orders  of  His  said  Majesty 
for  the  restitution  of  those  prizes  and  conquests  shall  be  immediately 
expedited  after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  acts  by  which 
Sweden  and  Denmark  shall  accede  to  the  present  treaty.^ 

Article  10 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  two  contracting 
Parties,  and  the  ratifications  exchanged  at  St.  Petersburg  in  the  space 
of  two  months  at  furthest  from  the  day  of  the  signature. 

In   faith  of  which,  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  caused  to 
be  made  two  copies  thereof,  perfectly  similar,  signed  with  their  hands, 
and  have  caused  the  seal  of  their  arms  to  be  affixed  thereto. 
Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  the  5/17  June,  1801. 

[L.  S.]   N.  Cte.  de  Panin 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 


^For  the  acts  of  accession,  see  post,  p.  606  and  note. 


602  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Formula  of  the  Passports  and  Sea  Letters  which  are  to  be  de- 
livered, IN  THE  respective  ADMIRALTIES  OF  THE  StATES  OF  THE 

Two  High  Contracting  Parties,  to  the  Ships  and  Vessels 

WHICH    shall   sail    FROM    ThEM    CONFORMABLE   TO   ARTICLE   4  OF 

THE  Present  Treaty 
Be  it  known  that  we  have  given  leave  and  permission  to  N , 


of  the  city  or  place  of   N ,  master  and   conductor  of  the  ship 

N ,  belonging  to  N ,  of  the  port  of  N ,  of  tons  or 

thereabouts,  now  lying  in  the  port  or  harbor  of  N ,  to  sail  from 

thence  to  N ,  laden  with  N ,  on  account  of  N ,  after  the 

said  ship  shall  have  been  visited  before  its  departure  in  the  usual  man- 
ner by  the  officers  appointed  for  that  purpose;  and  the  said  N , 

or  such  other  as  shall  be  vested  with  Powers  to  replace  him.  shall 
be  obliged  to  produce  in  every  port  or  harbor  which  he  shall  enter 
with  the  said  vessel  to  the  officers  of  the  place,  the  present  licence, 

and  to  carry  the  flag  of  N ,  during  his  voyage. 

In  faith  of  which,  etc. 

Separate  and  Secret  Article 

His  Britannic  Majesty,  desiring  to  give  unequivocal  proof  of  the 
confidence  which  he  reposes  in  the  magnanimous  efforts  of  His  Maj- 
esty the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias  to  restore  peace  in  the  north  and 
in  the  disposition  shown  by  the  Courts  of  Stockholm  and  Copenhagen, 
giving  grounds  for  the  hope  that  these  efforts  will  be  crowned  by 
prompt  and  happy  results,  His  said  Britannic  Majesty  binds  himself 
to  issue  orders  at  once  for  his  squadron  to  return  with  the  least  pos- 
sible delay  from  the  Baltic  to  the  North  Sea. 

This  separate  and  secret  article  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect, 
etc. 

In  faith  whereof,  etc. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  June  5/17,  1801. 

[L.  S.]  N.   Count   Panin 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 

Separate  Article  1 

The  pure  and  magnanimous  intentions  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor 
of  all  the  Russias  having  already  led  him  to  restore  the  ships  and 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  603 

goods  of  British  subjects,  which  had  been  sequestered  in  Russia,  His 
said  Majesty  confirms  this  disposition  in  its  entirety  and  His  Britannic 
Majesty  likewise  agrees  to  issue  orders  immediately  to  free  from  se- 
questration Russian,  Danish,  and  Swedish  property  detained  in  the 
ports  of  Great  Britain. 

The  better  to  prove  his  sincere  desire  to  settle  in  a  friendly  way  the 
differences  between  Great  Britain  and  the  Courts  of  the  north,  and  to 
prevent  any  future  incident  from  hindering  this  salutary  undertaking. 
His  Britannic  Majesty  agrees  to  issue  orders  to  the  commanders  of 
his  land  and  naval  forces,  extending  for  a  period  of  three  months  from 
this  date  the  armistice  at  present  existing  with  the  Courts  of  Sweden 
and  Denmark,  and  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  im- 
pelled by  the  same  motives,  agrees  in  the  name  of  his  allies  that  this 
armistice  shall  be  continued  by  them  likewise  for  the  above-mentioned 
period. 

This  separate  article  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect,  etc. 

In  faith  whereof,  etc. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  June  5/17,  1801. 

[L.  S.]   N.    Count    "'^anin 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 

Separate  Article  2 

The  differences  and  misunderstandings  which  existed  between  His 
Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  having  thus  been  terminated, 
and  harmony  and  good  understanding  having  been  restored  for  the 
future,  Their  said  Majesties  confirm  anew  by  the  present  convention 
the  treaty  of  commerce  of  February  10/21.  1797,^  all  of  whose  stipula- 
tions are  here  reiterated  to  be  maintained  in  their  entirety. 

This  separate  article  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect,  etc. 

In  faith  whereof,  etc. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg,  June  5/17,  1801. 

[L.  S.]   N.   Count   Panin 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 


^Articles  10,  11  and  12  printed  ante  ,  p.  445. 


604  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Additional  Articles  and  Declaration  to  the  Convention  of  June  17, 
1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to  Neutral 
Trade,  October  20,  180P 

Additional  Articles 

Whereas  by  the  6th  article  of  the  convention  concluded  the  5/17th 
June,  1801,  between  His  Imperial  Majesty  of  all  the  Russias  and  His 
Britannic  Majesty,  it  was  stipulated  that  the  two  high  contracting 
Parties  should  mutually  agree  on  some  additional  articles,  which 
should  fix  the  regulations  and  principles  to  be  observed,  as  well  for 
accelerating  the  judicial  proceedings  upon  captures  made  at  sea,  as 
for  the  damages  which  should  be  allowed  to  the  owners  of  neutral 
ships  and  cargoes,  in  cases  of  unfounded  detention.  Their  said  Majes- 
ties have  named  and  authorized  for  this  purpose,  namely : 

His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  the  Sieur  Alexander. 
Prince  de  Kourakin,  his  Vice  Chancellor,  Actual  Privy  Councilor, 
Minister  of  the  Council  of  State,  Actual  Chamberlain.  Grand  Chancellor 
of  the  Sovereign  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  and  Knight  of  the 
Russian  Orders  of  St.  Andrew,  of  St.  Alexander-Newsky,  and  of  St. 
Anne  of  the  First  Class ;  of  those  of  Prussia,  of  the  Black  and  Red 
Eagles ;  of  those  of  Denmark,  of  the  Dannebrog,  and  of  the  Perfect 
Union ;  and  Grand  Cross  of  the  Sovereign  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  the  Sieur  Victor  Count  de  Kotschoubey,  his  Actual  Privy 
Councilor  Minister  for  the  Department  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Senator, 
Actual  Chamberlain,  and  Knight  of  the  Orders  of  St.  Alexander- 
Newsky,  of  St.  Vladimir  of  the  Second  Qass ;  and  Commander  of  the 
Sovereign  Order  of  St.  John  of  Jerusalem ;  and  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Alleyne  Lord 
Baron  St.  Helens,  a  Peer  of  the  said  United  Kingdom,  one  of  His  said 
Majesty's  Most  Honorable  Privy  Council,  and  his  Ambassador  Extraor- 
dinary and  Plenipotentiary  to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the 
Russias:  who,  in  virtue  of  their  respective  full  powers,  have  agreed 
upon  the  following  articles : 

Article  1 

In  case  of  unfounded  detention  or  other  contravention  of  the  estab- 
lished  regulations,   the  owners  of   the  vessel   and   cargo   so   defamed 


^Translation.     For  the  French  text,  see  Appendix,  pp.  695,  696. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  605 

shall  be  allowed  compensation  for  each  day's  demurrage,  proportion- 
ate to  the  loss  they  shall  have  sustained,  according  to  the  freight  of 
the  said  ship,  and  the  nature  of  its  cargo. 

Article  2 

If  the  Ministers  of  one  of  the  high  contracting  Parties,  or  any  other 
persons  accredited  by  the  same  to  the  belligerent  Power,  should  re- 
monstrate against  the  sentence  which  shall  have  been  passed  by  the 
respective  courts  of  admiralty  upon  the  said  captures,  appeal  shall 
be  made  in  Russia,  to  the  directing  Senate,  and  in  Great  Britain,  to 
His  Majesty's  Privy  Council. 

Article  3 

Care  shall  be  taken,  on  both  sides,  scrupulously  to  examine  whether 
the  regulations  and  precautions  agreed  upon  in  the  present  convention 
have  been  observed,  which  shall  be  done  with  all  possible  dispatch. 
The  two  high  contracting  Parties  moreover  mutually  engage  to  adopt 
the  most  efficacious  measures,  in  order  to  prevent  the  sentences  of 
their  several  tribunals,  respecting  captures  made  at  sea,  being  subject 
to  any  unnecessary  delay. 

Article  4 

The  goods  in  litigation  can  not  be  sold  or  unloaded  before  final 
judgment  without  an  urgent  and  real  necessity,  which  shall  have  been 
proved  before  the  court  of  admiralty,  and  by  virtue  of  a  commission 
to  this  effect ;  and  the  captors  shall  by  no  means  be  permitted  to  re- 
move or  take  away,  on  their  own  authority,  either  openly  or  clandes- 
tinely, any  thing  from  a  vessel  so  detained. 

These  additional  articles,  making  part  of  the  convention  signed  the 
5/17  June,  1801,  in  the  names  of  Their  Imperial  and  Britannic 
Majesties,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  validity  as  if  they  were 
inserted  word  for  word  in  the  said  convention. 

In  witness  whereof,  we  the  undersigned,  furnished  with  the  full 
powers  of  Their  said  Majesties,  have  signed  in  their  names  the  present 
additional  articles,  and  have  affixed  the  seal  of  our  arms  thereto. 

Done  at  Moscow  the  8/20  October,  1801. 

[L.  S.]   Prince  de  Kourakin 
[L.  S.]   Count  de  Kotschoubey 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 


606  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Declaration 

In  order  to  prevent  the  arising  of  any  subject  of  doubt  or  misunder- 
standing over  the  contents  of  the  second  section  of  Article  3  of  the 
convention  concluded  June  5/17,  1801,  between  His  Majesty  the  Em- 
peror of  all  the  Russias  and  His  Britannic  Majesty,  the  said  high  con- 
tracting Parties  have  agreed  and  do  declare  that  the  liberty  of  com- 
merce and  navigation  accorded  by  the  said  article  to  the  subjects  of 
the  neutral  Power  shall  never  warrant  direct  transportation,  in  time  of 
war,  of  merchandises  and  provisions  of  the  colonies  of  the  belligerent 
Power  in  the  continental  possessions  nor,  vice  versa,  of  the  mother 
country  in  the  enemy  colonies,  but  that  the  said  subjects  shall  never- 
theless enjoy  for  this  commerce  the  same  advantages  and  facilities  en- 
joyed by  the  most  favored  nations,  especially  the  United  States  of 
America. 


In  faith  of  which,  etc. 
Moscow,  October  8/20,  1801. 


[L.  S.]   Prince  de  Kourakin 
[L.  S.]   Count  de  Kotschourey 
[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 


Act  of  Accession  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  to  the  Con- 
vention of  June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia 
relative  to  Neutral  Trade,  October  23,  1801^ 

In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  Undivided  Trinity. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  and  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  having,  in 
pursuance  of  their  mutual  desire  to  terminate,  in  the  most  equitable 
manner,  the  differences  which  had  arisen  between  them,  as  well  as 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  other  maritime  Powers  of  the  north, 
respecting  the  navigation  of  their  respective  subjects,  concluded  a  con- 


^Translation.  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  vol.  1,  pt.  1,  p.  402.  For  a 
French  text  (mutatis  miita)idis) ,  see  Appendix,  p.  697.  The  act  of  accession 
of  Sweden,  signed  March  18/30,  1802,  is  identical  with  that  of  Denmark  and 
Norway  and  is  therefore  not  printed.  F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Conventions  con- 
clus  par  la  Russic,  vol.  11,  p.  27 ;  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  277. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  607 

vention,  signed  by  their  plenipotentiaries  at  St.  Petersburg,  the  5/17 
June,  of  the  present  year;  and  their  common  soHcitude  extending  it- 
self not  only  to  prevent  similar  altercations  in  future,  and  the  troubles 
which  might  result  therefrom,  by  establishing  and  applying  the  prin- 
ciples and  rights  of  neutrality  in  their  respective  monarchies,  but  also 
to  render  this  system  coinmori  and  equally  advantageous  to  the  mari- 
time Powers  of  the  north;  it  was  stipulated  by  Article  9  of  the  said 
convention,  that  His  Danish  Majesty  should  be  invited  by  His  Maj- 
esty the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  in  the  name  of  the  high  con- 
tracting Parties,  to  accede  to  the  said  convention ;  and  His  Majesty 
the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  animated  with  the  same  senti- 
ments of  conciliation  and  peace,  and  desirous  of  removing  everything 
which  has  interrupted,  or  might  hereafter  interrupt,  the  good  under- 
standing between  Their  Britannic  and  Danish  Majesties,  and  to  rees- 
tablish fully,  on  its  former  footing,  the  ancient  harmony  and  state  of 
things,  such  as  they  existed  by  His  Danish  Majesty's  treaties  and  con- 
ventions with  Great  Britain,  His  said  Majesty  has  not  hesitated  to 
listen  to  the  invitation  made  to  him  to  accede  to  the  said  convention 
signed  at  St.  Petersburg,  the  5/17  June  last. 

To  effect  this  salutary  purpose,  and  to  give  to  this  act  of  accession, 
and  to  the  acceptance  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  every  possible  authen- 
ticity, and  every  accustomed  solemnity,  Their  said  Majesties  have 
named  for  their  plenipotentiaries,  viz. :  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Alleyne  Lord  Baron 
St.  Helens,  a  Peer  of  the  said  United  Kingdom,  one  of  His  said 
Majesty's  Most  Honorable  Privy  Council,  and  his  Ambassador  Ex- 
traordinary and  Plenipotentiary  to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all 
the  Russias;  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway, 
the  Sieur  Francis  Xavier  Joseph  Count  de  Danneskiold  Lowendal, 
Count  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  Knight  of  the  Order  of  St.  John 
of  Jerusalem,  Major  General  in  the  service  of  His  Danish  Majesty, 
Commander  of  his  Marine  Forces,  and  his  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  all  the 
Russias ; 

Who,  after  having  reciprocally  exchanged  their  full  powers,  found 
to  be  in  good  and  due  form,  have  concluded  and  agreed,  that  all  the 
articles  of  the  convention  concluded  between  His  Majesty  the  King 
of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  His  Maj- 
esty the  Emperor  of  all  the  Russias,  the  5/17th  June  of  the  present 


THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

year,  as  well  as  the  separate  articles  annexed  thereto,^  and  the  ad- 
ditional ones  concluded  the  8/20th  October,  1801,  by  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries of  Their  said  Majesties,  in  all  the  clauses,  conditions,  and  ob- 
ligations, are  to  be  considered  as  having  been  agreed  upon,  done  and 
concluded,  word  for  word,  by  Their  Britannic  and  Danish  Majesties 
themselves,  in  quality  of  principal  contracting  Parties,  save  and  ex- 
cept the  differences  which  result  from  the  nature  of  the  treaties  and 
engagements  antecedently  subsisting  between  England  and  Denmark, 
of  which  the  continuance  and  renewal  are  secured  by  the  aforesaid 
convention ;  and  with  the  express  stipulation  on  the  part  of  the  high 
contracting  and  acceding  Parties,  that  the  stipulation  of  the  2d  arti- 
cle of  the  additional  articles,  signed  at  Moscow,  the  8/20th  October, 
1801,  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  Their  Britannic  and  Imperial  Majes- 
ties, which  fixes  that  the  adjudication  of  causes  in  litigation  shall, 
in  the  last  resort,  be  carried  by  appeal,  in  Russia,  before  the  Directing 
Senate,  and  in  Great  Britain  before^  His  Majesty's  Privy  Council,  is 
to  be  understood,  as,  with  regard  to  Denmark,  that  the  said  adjudica- 
tions shall  be  there  carried  by  appeal  before  the  supreme  tribunal  of 
that  kingdom. 

In  order  to  prevent  any  inaccuracy,  it  has  been  agreed  that  the  said 
convention,  signed  the  5/17th  June,  the  separate  article  annexed 
thereto,  and  the  additional  ones  concluded  the  8/20th,  October,  1801, 
should  be  inserted  here,  word  for  word,  as  follows : 

[Here  follow  the  convention  and  additional  articles.^] 

In  consequence  of  all  which  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Denmark 
accedes,  by  virtue  of  the  present  act,  to  the  said  convention,  and  to  the 
said  separate  and  additional  articles,  such  as  they  are  hereinbefore 
transcribed,  without  any  exception  or  reserve,  declaring  and  promis- 
ing to  fulfil  all  the  clauses,  conditions,  and  obligations  thereof,  as  far 
as  regards  himself ;  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  United  King- 
dom of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  accepts  the  present  accession  of  His 
Danish  Majesty,  and  in  like  manner  promises,  on  his  part,  to  fulfil  all 
the  articles,  clauses,  and  conditions,  contained  in  the  said  convention, 
and  the  separate  and  additional  articles  hereinbefore  inserted,  with- 
out any  exception  or  reserve. 

The  ratifications  of  the  present  act  of  accession  and  acceptance  shall 

^Relating  to   sequestrations,   armistice,   etc. 
^Antc,  pp.  595,  604. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  609 

be  exchanged  in  the  space  of  two  months,  or  sooner  if  possible;  and 
the  stipulations  of  the  said  convention  shall,  at  the  same  time,  be  car- 
ried into  execution  as  speedily  as  possible,  regard  being  had  to  the 
full  and  entire  reestablishment  of  the  state  of  things,  such  as  it  was 
before  the  period  of  the  misunderstandings,  which  are  now  so  hap- 
pily terminated. 

In  witness  whereof,  we  the  undersigned,  by  virtue  of  our  full 
powers,  have  signed  the  present  act,  and  have  hereunto  affixed  the 
seal  of  our  arms. 

Done  at  Moscow,  the  11/23  October,  1801. 

[L.  S.]   St.  Helens 

[L,  S.]   F.  X.  J.  CoMTE  DE  Danneskiold  Lowendal 


Ordinance  of  the  King  of  Denmark  regulating  the  Conduct  and  de- 
fining the  Obligations  of  the  Merchants  and  Mariners  of  His 
States  in  Time  of  War  between  Other  Maritime  Powers,  May 
4,  1803^ 

We,  Christian  VII,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  Denmark  and 
Norway,  etc.,  to  all  whom  it  may  concern. 

Although  the  rules,  by  which  merchants  and  seamen  who  are  our 
subjects  must  be  governed  in  time  of  war  between  other  maritime 
Powers,  have  been  laid  down  in  a  number  of  our  previous  ordinances, 
we  nevertheless  deem  it  necessary,  in  present  circumstances,  to  set 
forth  in  a  single  ordinance  the  contents  of  these  regulations,  modified  in 
several  respects  and  in  the  form  in  which  they  must  henceforth  serve 
as  the  rule,  in  order  that  the  greatest  possible  publicity  may  be  given 
by  these  presents  to  the  invariable  principles,  according  to  which  we 
intend  to  maintain  at  all  times  the  rights  of  the  merchants  and  sea- 
men of  our  States,  and  that  no  one  may  allege  ignorance  of  the  duties 
which  he  must  fulfil,  as  a  Danish  subject,  in  a  similar  case.  There- 
fore, it  is  our  royal  will  that  the  following  regulations  be  scrupulously 
observed,  as  the  only  rule  of  conduct,  by  all  those  who  may  wish  to 
participate  in  the  advantages  which  the  neutrality  of  our  flag  in  time 


^Translation.     French  text,  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8,  p.  93. 


610  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

of  war  assures  to  the  legitimate  commerce  and  navigation  of  our  sub- 
jects. For  these  reasons,  revoking  by  these  presents  our  former  ordi- 
nances with  regard  to  the  conduct  of  our  subjects  during  a  foreign 
naval  war,  we  order  and  publish  the  following: 

Article  1 

Any  merchant  or  navigator  of  our  States  who  may  wish  to  send  a 
vessel  belonging  to  him  to  any  foreign  port  or  place,  to  which  the 
effects  of  a  war  that  has  broken  out  between  other  maritime  Powers 
mav  extend,  shall  be  required  to  secure  a  royal  passport  in  Latin  and 
such  other  papers  and  documents  as  are  necessary  for  the  legitimate 
sailing  of  a  ship.  To  this  end,  our  subjects  are  notified  at  the  begin- 
ning of  such  a  war,  for  what  foreign  ports  or  places  it  has  been 
deemed  necessary  that  they  be  provided  with  our  royal  passport  in 
Latin. 

Article  2 

Such  passport  may  not  be  delivered  to  the  owner  of  the  vessel  until 
he  shall  have  obtained  a  certificate  vouching  for  his  ownership. 

Article  3 

To  obtain  the  certificate  recjuired  by  the  foregoing  article,  he  must 
be  our  subject,  born  in  our  States,  or  he  must  have  acquired,  before 
the  outbreak  of  hostilities  between  any  maritime  Powers  of  Europe, 
complete  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights  of  a  domiciled  subject,  either  of 
our  countries  or  of  some  other  neutral  State.  The  owner  of  the  vessel, 
for  which  the  certificate  is  requested,  must,  in  any  event,  reside  in 
some  part  of  our  kingdoms  or  of  the  countries  belonging  to  us. 

Article  4 

To  procure  tlie  above-mentioned  certificate,  it  is  necessary  to  ap- 
pear before  the  magistrate  of  the  city  or  maritime  locality  from  which 
the  ship  sails,  or  else  the  place  of  residence  of  the  majority  of  the 
owners:  all  of  the  latter  shall  be  required  personally  to  certify,  either 
by  oral  oath,  or  by  formal  oath  in  writing  signed  by  their  own  hands, 
or  else  the  principal  owner,  in  the  name  of  all,  that  the  vessel  really 
belongs  to  them,  all  being  our  subjects,  and  that  it  has  not  on  board 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  611 

any  contraband  of  war  for  the  acx:ount  of  the  belligerent  Powers  or 
any  of  their  subjects. 

Article  5 

During  the  course  of  a  foreign  naval  war,  no  one,  who  was  bom  a 
subject  of  any  of  the  Powers  engaged  therein,  may  be  the  captain  of 
a  merchant  ship  sailing  under  our  royal  passport,  unless  he  proves  that 
he  acquired  citizenship  in  our  kingdoms  or  countries  before  the  out- 
break of  hostilities. 

Article  6 

Every  merchant  captain,  who  wishes  to  be  adjnitted  to  the  com- 
mand of  a  vessel  provided  with  our  royal  passport,  must  have  ac- 
quired citizenship  in  some  part  of  our  States.  His  citizenship  papers 
must  always  be  on  board  his  vessel  before  its  departure  from  the  port 
where  the  passport  is  issued ;  he  shall  be  required  to  make  oath,  in  the 
prescribed  form,  that  no  act  shall,  with  his  knowledge  or  consent,  be 
committed  or  attempted,  with  regard  to  the  said  vessel,  which  might 
involve  abuse  of  the  passports  and  certificates  issued  to  him.  The 
oath  shall  be  sent  to  the  competent  department  with  the  application  for 
the  passport.  But  in  case  this  can  not  be  done  because  of  the  absence 
of  the  captain,  the  owner  of  the  vessel  shall  be  required  to  give  notice 
thereof  to  the  said  department,  and  our  consul  or  commercial  agent 
in  the  district  where  the  captain  happens  to  be  shall  see  to  it,  on  his 
responsibility,  that  he  makes  the  prescribed  oath. 

Article  7 

There  must  not  be  on  board  vessels  provided  with  the  above-pre- 
scribed passport  any  supercargo,  clerk,  or  other  ship's  officer  who  is 
the  subject  of  a  Power  at  war. 

Article  8 

Half  of  the  crews  of  the  vessels  above  specified,  including  the  boat- 
swains and  boatswains'  mates,  shall  consist  of  natives  of  this  country. 
If  the  crew  of  a  vessel  should  become  depleted  in  a  foreign  country 
through  desertion,  death,  or  sickness,  and  if  the  captain  should  find  it 
impossible  to  comply  with  the  aforesaid  rule,  he  shall  be  allowed  to 


612  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

engage  as  many  foreign  subjects,  preferably  subjects  of  neutral  coun- 
tries, as  he  may  need  to  continue  his  voyage ;  provided,  nevertheless, 
that  the  subjects  of  a  Power  at  war,  on  board  his  ship,  shall  in  no 
case  constitute  more  than  one  third  of  the  entire  crew.  Whenever  a 
change  is  made  in  his  crew,  the  captain  must  make  entry  thereof,  with 
a  statement  of  the  causes  which  rendered  it  necessary,  in  the  vessel's 
muster  roll,  which  muster  roll  shall  be  duly  attested  by  the  consul  or 
commercial  agent,  or  his  deputy,  in  the  first  port  touched  by  the  ves- 
sel, in  order  that  this  attestation  may  serve  as  the  captain's  authority 
wherever  there  may  be  need. 

Article  9 

The  papers  and  documents  specified  below  must  always  be  on  board 
vessels  provided  with  our  royal  passport,  to  wit :  the  certificate  pre- 
scribed by  Article  2. 

Its  construction  papers,  and  if  the  vessel  was  not  built  for  the  pres- 
ent proprietor,  the  contract  of  sale  or  the  purchase  documents  shall 
be  attached  thereto.  The  former  of  these  two  instruments  and  the 
latter,  if  there  be  occasion,  shall  accompany  the  application  of  the 
owner  for  a  passport. 

The  royal  passport  in  Latin,  with  the  translations  thereto  apper- 
taining. 

Its  measurement  certificate. 

The  muster  roll  of  the  crew,  duly  verified  by  the  competent  officers. 

The  charter-parties  and  bills  of  lading  covering  the  cargo,  and 
finally,  the  attestation  of  the  custom  house  of  the  locality  where  the 
cargo  has  been  loaded. 

Article  10 

The  measurement  certificate  shall  be  issued  by  the  officers  appointed 
for  this  purpose  in  the  maritime  localities  of  our  kingdoms  and  coun- 
tries. In  case  one  of  our  subjects  shall  have  bought  a  vessel  in  some 
foreign  port,  our  consul  or  commercial  agent  on  the  spot,  shall  be 
authorized  to  attend  to  the  measurement  and  to  issue  to  the  captain  a 
provisional  measurement  certificate,  which  shall  be  considered  valid 
until  the  vessel  reaches  some  port  of  our  States,  where  it  shall  be 
measured  and  marked  in  due  form,  whereupon  a  measurement  certifi- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  613 

cate  in  the  regular  form  shall  be  issued,  which  thereafter  shall  form 
a  part  of  the  sailing  papers  of  the  vessel. 

Article  11 

A  ship-owner  is  forbidden  to  secure  and  a  captain  to  have  on  board 
false  sailing  papers ;  the  ship  shall  not  fly  a  foreign  flag  while  on  a 
voyage  under  papers  and  instruments  issued  by  us. 

Article  12 

Our  royal  passport  is  valid  for  only  one  voyage ;  that  is  to  say,  from 
the  time  that  the  vessel,  after  having  secured  it,  sails  from  the  port 
where  it  was  issued  until  its  return  to  the  same  port,  it  being  under- 
stood that  in  the  meantime  it  shall  not  have  changed  hands,  in  which 
case  the  new  owner  shall  be  required  to  procure,  in  his  own  name,  the 
necessary  papers  and  documents. 

Article  13 

Since  according  to  the  generally  established  principles  the  subjects 
of  a  neutral  Power  can  not  be  permitted  to  transport  in  their  vessels 
goods  that  would  be  considered  contraband  of  war,  if  they  were  des- 
tined for  the  ports  of  a  belligerent  Power  or  if  they  belonged  to  its 
subjects,  we  have  deemed  it  advisable  to  define  expressly  what  shall  be 
included  under  the  head  of  contraband  of  war,  in  order  to  prevent  the 
abuse  of  our  flag  in  covering  the  transportation  of  prohibited  articles 
and  so  that  no  one  may  allege  ignorance  on  this  score.  Therefore, 
we  declare  that  the  articles  and  merchandise  hereinafter  specified  shall 
be  considered  contraband  of  war:  cannons,  mortars,  arms  of  all  kinds, 
pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets,  balls,  guns,  gun-flints,  fuses,  powder, 
saltpeter,  sulphur,  breastplates,  pikes,  swords,  sword-belts,  cartridge- 
boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  with  the  exception,  however,  of  such  quan- 
tity as  may  be  necessary  for  the  defense  of  the  vessel  and  of  those 
composing  its  crew. 

Moreover,  the  positive  agreements  contracted  with  foreign  Powers 
respecting  merchandise  and  property,  the  transportation  of  which  in 
time  of  war  is  prohibited  by  the  said  agreements,  shall  remain  in  force, 
and  to  this  end  special  regulations  shall  be  drawn  up,  to  be  delivered  to 
every  ship-owner  when  he  receives  our  royal  passport. 


614  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  14 

In  case  a  vessel  bound  for  a  neutral  port  should  ship  as  cargo  goods 
that  would  be  contraband  of  war,  if  they  were  destined  for  a  port 
belonging  to  some  belligerent  Power,  it  shall  not  be  sufficient  for  the 
owner  and  the  captain  to  make  oath  as  prescribed  above,  but  the  owner 
and  the  captain  shall  be  further  required  to  make  conjointly  a  declara- 
tion dififerent  from  the  general  customs  declaration,  in  which  shall  be 
specified  the  kind,  the  quantity,  and  the  price  of  these  goods.  This 
declaration  shall  be  verified  by  the  customs  officers  at  the  place  from 
which  the  vessel  sails;  after  which  the  customs  officer  having  jurisdic- 
tion shall  forward  it  immediately  to  the  general  custom  house,  to  be 
used  in  checking  and  verifying  the  arrival  of  the  goods  therein  speci- 
fied at  their  place  of  destination  therein  set  forth,  unless  their  arrival 
should  be  prevented  by  capture  or  forcible  detention,  whereof  satisfac- 
tory proof  must  be  furnished.  This  checking  up  shall  be  effected  in 
the  following  manner : 

The  shipper  of  such  goods  must  furnish  a  certificate  in  writing 
from  our  consul  or  commercial  agent,  or  of  their  deputy,  at  the  place 
for  which  the  vessel  is  bound,  or  in  their  default,  from  the  competent 
magistrate  or  some  other  person  publicly  authorized  and  qualified  for 
this  purpose ;  which  certificate  shall  state  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  and 
the  discharge  of  its  cargo  in  conformity  with  the  aforesaid  declaration, 
and  shall  be  the  legal  evidence  thereof.  This  certificate  shall  be  sent 
to  our  General  Bureau  of  Economics  and  Commerce  as  soon  as  the 
vessel  shall  have  reached  the  port  for  which  it  was  bound,  or  else  after 
its  return  to  one  of  the  ports  of  our  kingdoms.  In  case  this  certifi- 
cate is  not  transm.itted  within  a  period  proportionate  to  the  length  of 
the  voyage,  our  General  Bureau  of  Economics  and  Commerce  shall 
require  the  owner  of  the  vessel  to  make  a  declaration,  such  as  he 
shall  be  willing  to  swear  to,  to  the  effect  that  he  has  received  no  news 
of  the  vessel  or  of  the  goods.  If  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  and  the 
discharge  of  the  goods  above  specified  in  a  neutral  port  can  not  be 
proved,  and  if  a  capture  at  sea  or  some  other  unfortunate  event  is  not 
the  cause  thereof,  the  owner  shall  pay  into  the  treasury  of  our  General 
Bureau  of  Economics  and  Commerce  a  fine  of  twenty  rigsdalers  for 
every  last  of  goods  carried  by  the  vessel ;  and  both  the  owner  and  the 
captain  shall,  in  addition,  be  liable  to  prosecution  under  the  fiscal  laws. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  615 

Article  15 

All  captains  of  vessels  are  forbidden  to  sail  for  a  port  blockaded 
by  sea  by  one  of  the  Powers  at  war;  they  must  conform  strictly  to 
the  instructions  given  them  by  the  competent  magistrates  with  regard 
to  the  blockade  of  such  a  port.  In  case  a  captain,  desiring  to  enter  a 
port  of  the  blockade  of  which  he  is  unaware,  encounters  a  ship  of  the 
line  flying  the  flag  of  one  of  the  Powers  at  war,  whose  commander 
notifies  him  that  this  port  is  actually  blockaded,  he  shall  be  required  to 
withdraw  forthwith  and  shall  not  attempt  in  any  way  to  enter  it  as 
long  as  the  blockade  is  not  raised. 

Article  16 

None  of  our  subjects  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  the  service  of  any 
corsair  or  privateer  of  a  country  at  war,  nor  himself  to  arm  vessels 
for  such  a  purpose,  nor  to  have  a  share  or  interest  in  such  vessels. 
No  ship-owner  or  captain  shall  permit  the  use  of  his  ship  for  the 
transportation  of  troops  or  munitions  of  war  of  any  kind  whatsoever. 
In  case  a  captain  is  unable  to  prevent,  because  of  the  superiority  of 
the  force  used  against  him,  the  use  of  his  vessel  for  such  a  purpose,  he 
shall  be  required  to  make  formal  protest  in  a  properly  attested  instru- 
ment against  the  act  of  violence  which  it  was  not  in  his  power  to 
escape. 

Article  17 

When  a  vessel  that  is  not  under  military  convoy  shall  be  hailed  at 
sea  by  an  armed  ship  belonging  to  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers, 
which  is  authorized  to  inspect  the  sailing  papers  on  board  merchant 
ships,  the  captain  shall  offer  no  resistance  to  such  examination,  if  the 
captain  of  the  armed  ship  states  it  to  be  his  intention  to  make  it ;  but 
he  shall  be  required  to  show  in  good  faith  and  without  concealment  all 
the  papers  and  documents  pertaining  to  his  vessel  and  to  its  cargo. 

The  captain  of  the  vessel,  as  well  as  its  officers  and  crew,  is  like- 
wise forbidden,  under  severe  penalties,  to  throw  overboard,  to  destroy, 
or  to  hold  back  any  of  the  documents  forming  part  of  the  papers  re- 
lating to  the  vessel  and  its  cargo,  either  before  the  visit  or  while  it 
is  in  progress.  In  case  we  shall  have  granted  anned  protection  to  the 
commerce  under  our  flag,  then  merchant  captains,  who  may  desire  to 
be  received  under  convoy,  shall  be  required  first  to  show  their  sailing 


616  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

papers  to  the  commander  of  the  convoy  and  to  be  governed  by  his 
orders  in  every  particular. 

Article  18 

Any  owner  or  captain  who  shall  contravene,  wholly  or  partially,  the 
articles  and  rules  of  this  ordinance,  shall  forfeit  his  citizenship  and 
his  right  to  engage  in  maritime  commerce,  and  shall,  furthermore,  be 
liable  to  prosecution  under  the  fiscal  laws,  and  shall  be  punished,  ac- 
cording to  the  seriousness  of  the  offense,  either  as  a  perjurer  or  as  a 
violator  of  royal  ordinances.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  our  intention 
to  protect  and  to  maintain  the  rights  of  all  our  dear  and  faithful  sub- 
jects who  shall  strictly  conform  to  the  above-mentioned  rules  in  their 
legitimate  commerce  and  navigation.  Therefore,  we  have  ordered  all 
our  Ministers,  consuls,  and  other  agents  in  foreign  countries,  to  be 
most  active  in  their  efforts  to  prevent  our  said  subjects  from  being 
vexed  or  molested,  and,  if  they  should  be,  to  help  them  to  obtain  jus- 
tice and  redress  of  their  grievances.  We  promise,  furthermore,  to 
support  all  well-founded  claims  which  they  may  have  occasion  humbly 
to  lay  before  us. 

Given  at  Copenhagen,  May  4,  1803. 

Under  our  hand  and  seal. 

CHRISTIAN  R. 


Declaration  of  Neutrality  of  the  Republic  of  the  Seven  Islands, 

June,  1803^ 

The  Republic  of  the  Seven  Islands,  having  no  concern  whatever  in 
the  matters  in  dispute  between  the  two  Powers,  whose  good-will  and 
friendship  it  appreciates,  is  pleased  to  see  in  its  midst  the  public  agents 
of  both  and  shall  not  cease  to  show  them  proper  deference  and  re- 
gard. It  deems  it  to  be  its  duty  to  declare  hereby  to  all  Europe,  to 
all  the  Powers  its  friends,  and  particularly  to  France  and  England, 
that   it   will   observe   the   strictest   neutrality,   in   conformity  with   the 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8.  p.  U)2. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  617 

principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  convinced,  as  it  is,  that  the  last  two 
States  will  observe  the  sanie  impartiality  with  respect  to  it  and  will 
not  permit  the  slightest  violation  of  its  neutrality,  either  in  the  matter 
of  its  political  and  territorial  rights,  or  in  the  matter  of  its  commercial 
relations  and  the  property  of  its  subjects.  The  Government  of  these 
Islands  therefore  orders  its  inhabitants  to  have  every  regard  and  sen- 
timents of  affection  and  mutual  consideration  for  all  the  war  and  mer- 
chant ships  and  all  individuals  of  the  two  belligerent  nations.  It  en- 
joins especially,  holding  them  to  the  strictest  accountability,  all  the 
civil  and  military  employees  of  this  Republic  not  to  permit  in  any  way 
that  any  injury,  on  any  pretext  whatever,  be  done  to  any  individual 
Avho  is  a  subject  of  either  of  the  two  belligerent  Powers;  for  the 
Government  of  the  Seven  Islands  desires  to  remain  constantly  on  the 
best  of  terms  with  them,  and  to  maintain  with  them  relations  of  friend- 
ship and  commerce. 


Decree  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Portugal  concerning  the  Observance 
of  Neutrality  in  His  States,  June  3,  1803^ 

As  it  is  always  the  object  of  my  paternal  wishes  and  of  my  royal 
sentiments  to  maintain  intact  the  peaceful  relations  which  happily 
exist  between  me  and  the  Powers,  my  allies  and  friends ;  as  to  this 
end,  in  the  present  circumstances  of  Europe,  it  is  advisable  to  define 
the  principles  which  must  serve  as  the  basis  of  a  system  of  absolute 
neutrahty,  which  it  is  my  intention  shall  be  religiously  observed,  if 
war  should  break  out — which  Heaven  f orfend  ! — among  the  Powers, 
my  allies  and  friends ;  and  considering  how  greatly  it  is  to  the  in- 
terest of  the  welfare  of  mankind  and  to  the  tranquillity  of  my  States 
and  vassals  to  prevent  the  most  trivial  differences,  which  might  result 
from  ignorance  of  the  ordinances  issued  to  carry  out  the  purpose 
which  I  have  in  mind : 

I  therefore  declare  ''that  the  privateers  of  the  belligerent  Powers 
shall  not  be  admitted  to  the  ports  of  my  States  and  dominions  nor 
shall  the  prizes  which  may  be  taken,  either  by  them  or  by  vessels  of  the 


^Translation.     French  text,  ibid.,  p.  101. 


618  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

line,  frigates  or  other  war-ships,  except  only  in  cases  where  the  law 
of  nations  declares  hospitality'  to  be  absolutely  necessary,  and  then 
only  on  condition  that  it  be  not  permitted  to  sell  the  said  prizes  or 
their  cargoes  discharged  in  these  ports,  when  there  are  prizes  in  such 
cases ;  nor  may  the  vessels  remain  longer  than  is  necessary  to  avoid 
danger  or  to  receive  the  innocent  assistance  of  which  they  may  have 
need." 

Likewise  the  decree  of  August  30,  1780,  in  which  the  same  thing  is 
ordered,  is  renewed  and  is  to  be  in  full  force. 

The  war  council  shall  see  to  the  execution  of  all  these  ordinances 
and  shall  issue  the  necessary  orders  to  the  governors  and  commanders 
of  provinces,  of  fortresses,  and  of  maritime  localities. 

QuELus  Palace,  June  5.  180^. 


Proclamation  of  the  Prince  and  President  of  the  Senate  of  the  Re- 
public of  the  Seven  Islands,  containing  Regulations  governing 
the  Conduct  of  His  Subjects  with  regard  to  the  Maintenanca 
of  Neutrality,  July  9,  1803' 

On  the  first  news  of  the  renewal  of  the  war  between  the  two  high 
Powers,  England  and  France,  the  Government  of  the  Seven  United 
Islands  hastened  to  manifest  its  sentiments  of  loyal  friendship,  devo- 
tion, and  impartiality  toward  these  Powers,  by  proclaiming  to  all 
Europe  its  absolute  neutrality  in  the  differences  between  the  said  bel- 
ligerent Powers. 

The  Senate,  now  wishing  to  confirm  still  further  the  sincerity  of 
the  intentions  of  the  Republic  and  the  care  it  has  taken  to  see  that 
its  subjects  religiously  observe  this  neutrality,  has  adopted  the  follow- 
ing provisions  and  orders  the  most  exact  and  absolute  execution 
thereof : 

ARTicr,E  1 

It  is  expressly  forbidden  all  subjects  of  the  Republic  to  take  the 
slightest  part,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the  present  war,  either  as  sailors 


^Translations.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8,  p.  103. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  619 

or  soldiers,  or  in  any  other  capacity,  on  the  war-ships  or  privateers 
of  either  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  which  may  touch  at  the  ports  of 
the  State  or  at  any  other  place  or  foreign  jwrt. 

Article  2 

It  is  likewise  forbidden  captains  and  officers  of  our  vessels  to  enter, 
on  any  pretext  whatever,  the  service  of  either  of  the  belligerent 
Powers,  whether  for  transportation  or  for  any  other  purpose ;  as  well 
as  to  load  their  vessels  with  munitions  of  war  or  other  contraband 
goods,  to  transport  them  to  other  vessels  or  to  places  or  localities  be- 
longing to  the  said  Powers,  or  to  cities  or  ports  which  are  under  siege. 

Article  3 

Any  person  who  shall  act  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  two  fore- 
going articles  shall  incur  capital  punishment,  and  his  property,  both 
real  and  personal,  present  and  future,  shall  be  confiscated,  and  the 
proceeds  thereof  shall  be  turned  into  the  public  treasury. 

Article  4 

The  present  proclamation  shall  be  printed  in  the  two  languages  and 
published,  with  all  due  formalities,  in  all  the  cities,  burghs,  and  vil- 
lages of  our  Islands.  Moreover,  a  printed  copy  shall  be  delivered  by 
the  respective  governments  to  all  the  parish  churches,  with  formal 
orders  that  they  be  read  on  the  most  solemn  feast  days,  after  divine 
service,  and  that  they  be  publicly  posted  in  the  parish. 

Article  5 

In  order  that  the  present  provisions  may  be  absolutely  carried  out, 
several  printed  copies  shall  be  transmitted  to  all  the  Ministers  and 
consuls  of  the  Republic,  with  orders,  under  penalty  of  dismissal,  to 
read  them  to  the  captains  and  crews  of  our  national  vessels,  which 
may  touch  at  the  ports  mider  their  jurisdiction,  and  to  prevent  by  their 
vigilance  and  authority  any  contravention  of  the  rules  laid  down  in 
Article  2. 


620  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  6 

In  case  of  any  contravention,  the  said  Ministers  and  consuls  shall 
be  required  to  arrest  immediately  the  culprits  and  their  vessels,  and  to 
send  them  under  strong  guard  that  they  may  be  placed  at  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  Senate. 

Given  at  the  Senate  House  of  Corfu,  July  9,  1803. 

Spirtdion   George  Tetochi, 

Prince  and  President. 


Convention  of  July  25,  1803,  between  Great  Britain  and  Sweden  ex- 
plaining Article  11  of  the  Treaty  of  166P 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  Sweden  and  His  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  equally  animated  by  a 
desire  to  preserve  the  good  understanding  which  happily  exists  between 
them  and  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  differences  such  as  have  arisen 
with  regard  to  the  eleventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  concluded 
and  signed  at  Whitehall  on  October  21,  1661,^  have  appointed  and 
authorized  to  this  effect,  His  Swedish  Majesty,  George  Ulrich,  Baron 
Silverhjelm,  his  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  Knight  of  the  Order  of  the  Polar  Star;  and 
His  Britannic  Majesty,  the  Right  Honorable  Robert  Banks  Jenkinson, 
Lord  Hawkesbury,  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  Principal  Secretary 


^Translation.  French  text  in  Martens.  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8,  p.  91.  See  foot- 
note 2,  infra. 

2ARTICLE  11  :  Altho  the  foregoing  articles  of  this  treaty,  and  the  laws  of 
friendship  do  forbid,  that  either  of  the  confederates  shall  give  aid  and  supplys 
to  the  enemys  of  the  other,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  to  be  understood  that  that 
confederate,  with  his  subjects  and  inhabitants,  who  is  not  a  party  in  war,  shall 
be  deny'd  the  liberty  of  trade  and  navigation  with  the  enemys  of  that  con- 
federate who  is  involv'd  in  such  war ;  provided  only  that  no  goods  call'd 
contraband,  and  especially  money,  no  provisions,  nor  arms,  nor  bombs  with  their 
fusees  and  other  appurtenances,  no  fire-balls,  gun-powder,  matches,  cannon-ball, 
spears,  swords,  lances,  pikes,  halberts,  guns,  mortars,  petards,  grenadoes, 
musket-rests,  bandaliers,  salt-petre,  muskets,  musket-bullets,  helmets,  head-pieces, 
breast-plates,  coats  of  mail,  commonly  call'd  cuirasses,  and  the  like  kind  of 
arms,  nor  soldiers  horses  with  their  furniture,  nor  pistols,  belts,  or  any  other 
instruments  of  war,  nor  ships  of  war  and  guard-ships,  be  carry'd  to  the  enemys 
of  the  other  confederate,   on  the   penalty  of  being  made  prize  without  hopes 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  621 

of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  who,  after  having  duly  communicated  to 
each  other  their  respective  full  powers,  have  agreed  upon  the  following 
articles : 

1  Article  1 

In  base  either  of  the  two  contracting  Parties  should  remain  neutral 
in  a  war  in  which  the  other  contracting  Party  should  be  a  belligerent, 
the  vessels  of  the  neutral  Power  may  not  carry  to  the  enemy  or  ene- 
mies of  the  belligerent  Power  coined  money,  arms,  bombs  with  their 
fuses  and  appurtenances,  shells,  gunpowder,  fuses,  bullets,  lances, 
swords,  pikes,  halberds,  cannons,  mortars,  petards,  musket-rests, 
bandoleers,  saltpeter,  muskets  and  balls,  helmets,  morions,  breastplates 
or  coats  of  mail,  or  other  kinds  of  arms,  troops,  horses,  or  an}i:hing 
required  for  the  equipment  of  cavalry,  pistols,  sword-belts,  or  other 
instruments  of  war,  war-ships  or  guard-ships,  or  any  manufactured 
article  used  directly  in  their  equipment,  all  under  penalty  of  confisca- 
tion, when  such  articles  are  seized  by  either  of  the  contracting  Parties. 

Article  2 

The  cruisers  of  the  belligerent  Power  shall  have  the  right  to  detain 
the  vessels  of  the  neutral  Power  bound  for  ports  of  the  enemy  with 
cargoes  of  provisions  or  pitch,  rosin,  tar,  hemp,  and  in  general  all 
raw  materials  used  in  the  equipment  of  vessels  of  all  sizes,  and  like- 
wise all  manufactured  articles  used  in  the  equipment  of  merchant  ships 
(herring,  bar  iron,  steel,  red  copper,  brass,  brass  wire,  planks  and  thick 
planks,  except  those  of  oak  and  spars,  nevertheless  excepted)  ;  and  if 
the  cargoes  thus  exported  in  vessels  of  the  neutral  Power  were  pro- 
duced in  the  territory  of  that  Power  and  were  shipped  for  the  account 
of  its  subjects,  the  belligerent  Power  shall,  in  this  case,  have  the  right 
to  purchase  them,  on  condition  that  it  pay  ten  per  cent  in  addition  to 
the  amount  of  the  bill  for  the  cargo  faithfully  declared,  or  of  the  true 


of  redemption,  if  they  are  seiz'd  by  the  other  confederate.  Nor  shall  either  of 
the  confederates  permit  that  the  rebels  or  enemys  of  the  other  be  assisted  by 
the  endeavors  of  any  of  his  subjects,  or  that  their  ships  be  sold,  lent,  or  in 
any  manner  made  use  of  by  the  enemys  or  rebels  of  either,  to  his  disadvantage 
or  detriment.  But  it  shall  be  lawful  for  either  of  the  confederates,  and  his 
people  or  subjects,  to  trade  with  the  enemys  of  the  other,  and  to  carry  them 
any  merchandise  whatsoever  (excepting  what  is  above  excepted)  without  any 
impediment;  provided  they  are  not  carry'd  to  those  ports  or  places  which  are 
besieg'd  by  the  other,  in  which  case  they  shall  have  free  leave  either  to  sell 
their  goods  to  the  besiegers,  or  to  repair  with  them  to  any  other  port  which  is 
not  besieg'd.     Collection  of  Treatys,  vol.  3,  p.  247. 


622  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

market  value  of  the  goods  either  in  Sweden  or  in  England,  at  the 
option  of  the  owner,  and  furthermore  compensation  for  the  detention 
and  incidental  expenses. 

Article  3 

If  the  cargoes  specified  in  the  foregoing  article  (not  being  enemy 
property),  with  the  port  of  a  neutral  country  as  their  declared  desti- 
nation, are  detained  on  suspicion  of  being  actually  destined  for  an 
enemy  port,  and  if  it  is  proved,  after  due  investigation,  that  they  were 
actually  destined  for  a  neutral  port,  they  shall  be  free  to  continue  their 
voyage,  after  having  obtained  compensation  for  the  detention  and  in- 
cidental expenses,  unless  the  Government  of  the  belligerent  State,  hav- 
ing good  reason  to  believe  that  they  will  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
enemy,  should  desire  to  purchase  them,  in  which  case  they  shall  be 
bought  at  the  full  price  that  would  have  been  paid  for  them  in  the 
neutral  port  of  destination,  with  compensation  for  their  detention  and 
incidental  expenses. 

Article  4 

Herring,  bar  iron,  steel,  red  copper,  brass,  and  brass  wire,  planks 
and  thick  planks,  except  those  of  oak  and  spars,  shall  not  be  liable  to 
confiscation,  nor  to  the  right  of  preemption  on  the  part  of  the  bellige- 
rent Power;  but  they  may  pass  freely  in  vessels  of  the  neutral  coun- 
try, provided  of  course  that  they  are  not  enemy  property. 

Article  5 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  His  Swedish  Majesty 
and  by  His  Britannic  Majesty,  and  ratifications  shall  be  exchanged  at 
London  within  two  months,  or  sooner  if  possible. 

In   faith   whereof,   we,   the   undersigned,   plenipotentiaries   of    His 
Swedish   Majesty  and  of   His    Britannic   Majesty,    have    signed   the 
present  convention  and  have  hereto  affixed  the  seals  of  our  arms. 
Done  at  London,  July  25,  1803. 

George   Ulrich    Silverhjelm 
Hawkesbury 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  623 

Ordinance  of  Austria  on  the  Observance  of  Neutrality,  August  7, 

1803^ 

We,  Francis  II,  etc.,  etc.  Whereas  we  are  determined  to  observe 
tlie  strictest  neutrality  in  the  war  which  has  broken  out  between  France 
and  England,  and  therefore  that  the  relations  of  peace  and  friendship 
hitherto  existing  between  us  and  each  of  the  belligerent  Powers  may 
continue  without  interruption,  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  any 
cause  for  complaint,  that  on  the  one  hand  this  neutrality  be  observed 
by  all  our  subjects,  in  particular  by  those  engaged  in  navigation  and 
maritime  commerce,  so  far  as  it  depends  upon  them,  and  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  rights  of  our  neutral  coasts  and  localities  be  main- 
tained, and  also  that  commerce  with  each  of  the  belligerent  Powers, 
provided  that  it  be  carried  on  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  neutral- 
ity, be  duly  ensured.  For  these  reasons  and  to  this  end,  as  well  as  to 
prevent  any  misunderstanding  or  difficulty,  which  might  result  from 
ignorance  or  neglect  of  the  said  duties  and  rights,  we  publish  by  these 
presents  the  following  provisions,  which  are  founded  in  part  on  the 
rules  laid  down  in  existing  treaties  between  the  European  Powers, 
and  in  part  are  in  conformity  with  the  practices  followed  among  them 
by  virtue  of  the  law  of  nations,  by  which  provisions  our  civil  and 
military  officers  and  all  our  subjects  shall  be  guided  during  the  present 
naval  war. 

Article  1 

By  these  presents  we  forbid  all  our  subjects  and  all  the  inhabitants 
of  our  country  to  enlist  for  duty  on  land  or  sea  in  the  service  of  either 
of  the  belligerent  Powers,  in  any  rank  whatever,  or  voluntarily  to 
enter  the  military  service  of  these  Powers,  under  the  penalties  pro- 
vided by  the  laws  of  our  hereditary  countries  against  illegal  emigration. 

Article  2 

Our  subjects  shall  also  abstain,  in  all  other  respects,  from  taking  part 
personally  in  the  war  or  in  the  military  armaments.  In  particular,  they 
shall  refrain  from  the  arming  of  privateers  for  the  belligerent  Powers, 
and  shall  have  no  interest  of  any  kind  in  such  enterprises,  when  they 
are  carried  on  outside  of  our  territory. 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8,  p.  105. 


624  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  3 

We  likewise  forbid  all  our  subjects  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  our 
countries  to  construct,  equip,  or  sell,  in  the  ports,  roadsteads,  or  on 
the  coasts  subject  to  our  dominion,  any  war-ships  or  merchant  ships, 
for  use  by  the  belligerent  Powers,  under  penalty  of  a  fine  of  3,000 
ducats  for  every  violation  of  this  prohibition.  Half  of  this  fine  shall 
be  paid  to  the  informer  and  half  to  the  treasury,  and,  in  case  the  culprit 
is  insolvent,  shall  be  replaced  by  proportionate  corporal  punishment  or 
imprisonment. 

Article  4 

Furthermore,  Austrian  navigators,  because  of  the  neutrality  adopted, 
are  forbidden  to  transport  either  marines  or  sailors,  under  the  guise 
of  passengers  or  otherwise,  for  service  under  any  of  the  belligerent 
Powers,  in  particular  also  to  lend  their  names  to  vessels  or  property 
of  the  nations  at  war,  or,  finally,  to  convey  any  cargoes  or  merchan- 
dise to  localities  or  ports  besieged  or  blockaded  by  either  of  the  bel- 
ligerent Powers,  in  which  case  they  could  not  enjoy  the  freedom  of 
neutral  flags  according  to  the  established  practice  of  nations,  nor  could 
they  expect  from  us  any  protection  or  intercession. 

Article  5 

Austrian  ships  may  not  have  on  board  naval  officers  of  the  belliger- 
ent Powers,  or  sailors  belonging  to  those  Powers,  exceeding  a  third 
of  the  crew,  since  the  vessel  would  otherwise  not  be  considered  neutral. 

Article  6 

In  the  just  expectation  that  neutral  Austrian  commerce  shall  be 
duly  respected  by  the  belligerent  Powers  and  that  the  rights  which 
custom  confers  upon  them  shall  be  exercised  by  them  with  the  ordinary 
modifications,  required  by  the  law  of  nations  or  by  treaties,  we  order 
that  Austrian  navigators  shall  not  resist  visit  on  the  high  seas  on  the 
part  of  foreign  war-ships,  but  that  they  shall  show  without  throwing 
any  difficulties  in  the  way  the  papers  and  documents  proving  the 
neutrality  of  the  vessel  and  its  cargo,  and  shall  not  throw  any  of  these 
instruments  overboard  or  destroy  them  in  any  way ;  still  less  shall  they 
be  permitted  to  have  false,  misleading,  or  secret  papers  on  board. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  625 

Article  7 

With  regard  to  neutral  commerce  and  articles  which  are  to  be  con- 
sidered contraband  during  war,  we,  for  our  part,  assume  the  same 
obligations  as  those  contracted  by  the  other  neutral  Powers,  to  wit, 
Russia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark,  in  their  last  convention  with  England, 
of  June  17,  1801.^  In  return,  we  shall  expect  the  belligerent  Powers 
to  observe  toward  us  and  the  commerce  of  our  subjects  the  same 
consideration  and  to  respect  the  same  rights,  which  these  Powers  and 
the  other  neutral  States  must  enjoy  for  the  same  reason.  Consequently, 
we  forbid  all  our  subjects,  who  are  navigators  and  merchants,  to 
transport,  for  the  Powers  now  at  war,  any  of  the  goods  or  munitions 
of  war  hereinafter  designated,  to  wit:  cannons,  mortars,  arquebuses, 
pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets,  guns,  gun-flints,  fuses,  powder,  salt- 
peter, sulphur,  pikes,  swords,  sword-belts,  cartridge-boxes,  saddles  and 
bridles.  All  these  articles  being  generally  regarded  as  contraband,  only 
such  quantities  of  them  may  be  carried  on  neutral  vessels  as  are  neces- 
sary for  their  use  and  defense.  Any  of  our  subjects  who,  in  spite  of 
our  prohibition,  shall  engage  in  this  forbidden  commerce,  shall  incur 
the  penalty  of  their  disobedience,  and  shall,  moreover,  be  exposed  to 
all  the  injuries  that  they  may  suffer  through  the  capture  and  confisca- 
tion of  their  vessels  by  the  belligerent  Powers. 

Article  8 

With  the  exception  of  the  articles  designated  in  the  preceding  article, 
trade  in  merchandise,  products,  and  wares  shall  be  carried  on  without 
restriction  with  the  belligerent  Powers,  provided  the  exportation  of 
such  goods  from  the  hereditary  countries  is  not  prohibited,  in  general, 
by  existing  laws  and  regulations,  or  by  laws  or  regulations  that  may 
hereafter  be  published.  Nevertheless,  all  purchasing,  storing,  and 
transporting  of  articles  of  equipment  and  provisions  for  the  fleets  and 
armies  at  war,  is  forbidden.  The  vessels  which  shall  enter  the  ports 
may  only  load  such  quantity  as  is  necessary  for  their  own  use.  For 
the  rest,  our  subjects  engaged  in  sea-going  trade  shall  act  with  pru- 
dence, paying  attention  to  everything  that  may  be  published  on  this 
subject  by  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  considering  the  annoyances  that 
mieht  result  with  regard  to  their  commerce. 


^Ante,  pp.  595,  606. 


626  THE  ARAIED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  9 

As  it  is  self-evident  that,  in  order  to  avoid  all  difficulties  on  the 
high  seas,  neutral  navigators  must  prove  the  neutrality  of  their  vessel 
and  its  cargo,  any  of  our  subjects  who  may  wish  to  put  to  sea  from 
one  of  our  ports  and  transport  his  cargo  to  distant  ports,  coasts,  or 
countries,  whether  neutral  or  at  war,  must  obtain  from  the  nearest 
authority,  or  from  the  magistrate  of  the  place,  the  necessary  maritime 
passports,  as  well  as  customs  certificates,  charts,  bills  of  lading,  and 
the  other  customary  documents,  on  which  shall  appear  the  name  of  the 
owner,  the  character  and  quantity  of  the  cargo,  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, and  the  consignee.  We  shall  immediately  publish  special  regula- 
tions on  the  form,  the  manner  in  which  these  passports  shall  be  drawn 
up,  and  the  precautionary  measures  necessary  to  prevent  abuse  thereof. 


Article  10 

Since  Austrian  vessels  may,  in  spite  of  the  present  war,  continue 
unrestrained  their  commerce  and  their  business  in  the  ports  of  the 
belligerent  Powers,  the  war  and  merchant  ships  of  these  Powers  may 
likewise  freely  enter,  as  before,  all  Austrian  ports,  remain  there  as 
long  as  they  see  fit,  make  repairs,  etc.,  if  they  conform  strictly  to  the 
rules  and  principles  of  neutrality.  However,  in  order  to  observe 
on  this  point  perfect  equality  with  regard  to  war-ships  and,  so  far  as 
possible,  to  avoid  all  difficulties,  we  decree  that,  so  long  as  the  present 
war  lasts,  no  more  than  six  war-ships  of  each  of  the  belligerent  Powers 
may  enter  our  ports  at  one  time. 

Article  11 

Since  all  vessels  without  exception  must  enjoy  the  protection  which 
neutrality  ensures,  and  absolute  security  in  all  the  ports,  roadsteads, 
and  coasts  subject  to  our  dominion,  it  shall  not  be  permissible  for  one 
or  more  vessels  of  the  Powers  at  war  to  engage  in  hostilities  in  the 
said  ports,  nor  within  cannon-shot  of  the  coasts,  and  consequently 
there  shall  be  no  fighting,  pursuit,  attack,  visit,  or  seizure  of  ships  in 
the  said  waters.  Our  authorities  and  particularly  the  military  com- 
manders in  our  seaports  shall  especially  watch  over  these  matters. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  627 

Article  12 

By  virtue  of  the  rights  proceeding  from  the  said  neutrality,  it  shall 
not  be  permissible  for  the  vessels  of  the  belligerent  Powers  to  cruise 
ofi"  our  ports  within  the  distance  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  article, 
lying  in  wait  for  ships  entering  or  leaving;  still  less  may  they  remain 
in  the  said  ports  for  the  purpose  of  sailing  out  to  meet  incoming  vessels 
or  of  pursuing  those  that  wish  to  put  to  sea. 

Article  13 

When  privateers  or  armed  merchant  ships  of  the  two  belligerent 
Powers  chance  to  be  at  the  same  time  in  one  of  our  ports  and  one  of 
them  wishes  to  put  to  sea,  the  other  may  not  leave  within  twenty-four 
hours,  it  being  understood  that  the  vessel  which  anchored  in  the  port 
first  has  the  right  to  put  to  sea  before  or  after  the  other.  War-ships 
or  entire  squadrons  shall  not,  however,  be  subject  to  this  twenty-four 
hour  rule,  provided  their  commanders  give  their  word  of  honor  to  the 
governor  or  chief  officer  of  the  port  that  they  will  not  pursue  or  molest 
during  this  period  of  time  any  vessel  of  the  enemy.  The  word  of 
honor  shall  be  given  once  for  all  by  commanders  of  fleets  and  squad- 
rons ;  the  captains  of  single  vessels  must  renew  their  promise  every 
time  they  wish  to  put  to  sea.  As  for  captains  of  armed  merchant  ships 
or  privateers,  they  may  not  leave  the  port  within  twenty-four  hours, 
unless  they  give  sufficient  security  for  the  fulfilment  of  their  promise. 

Article  14 

Vessels  of  the  belligerent  Powers  shall  not  be  permitted  to  leave  the 
port,  when  the  arrival  of  a  foreign  vessel  has  been  reported,  unless, 
as  provided  in  the  preceding  article,  the  commander  of  war-ships  has 
given  his  word,  or  the  merchants  or  privateers  have  furnished  sufficient 
security,  to  abstain  from  any  act  of  hostility  against  the  said  vessels. 

Article  15 

Small  vessels,  like  tartans,  trabacolos,  feluccas,  rowboats,  etc.,  are 
excepted  from  this  provision.  Their  crews  and  armaments  being  too 
insignificant  to  be  able  to  commit  any  act  of  hostility,  they  may  conse- 
quently leave  the  port  whenever  they  see  fit. 


628  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  16 

The  enlistment  of  sailors  for  service  under  the  belligerent  Powers 
is  forbidden  in  our  ports ;  and  in  case  vessels  belonging  to  these  Powers 
shall  have  need  of  men  to  complete  their  crews,  they  shall  be  permitted . 
to  procure  them,  on  condition,  however,  that  they  shall  not  engage  any 
of  our  subjects  or  inhabitants  of  the  country  and  that  they  shall  not 
take  by  force  the  crew  of  any  other  vessel  of  the  same  belligerent 
Power,  but  that  their  crew  shall  be  completed  with  individuals  who 
shall  enlist  voluntarily. 

Article  17 

Prizes  which  the  vessels  of  one  of  the  belligerent  Powers  shall  have 
taken  from  the  other  may  be  brought  into  all  our  ports,  where  there  is 
a  commander  or  governor,  and  specifically  into  the  ports  of  Venice, 
Trieste,  Fiume,  Zeng,  and  Zara.  Effects  may  be  unloaded,  stored,  and 
guarded,  provided  they  are  not  articles  whose  importation  into  our 
countries  is  prohibited.  They  may  be  bought,  sold,  and  again  exported 
for  sale  elsewhere,  on  condition  nevertheless  that  the  competent  courts 
of  the  Power  making  the  prize  shall  have  passed  upon  its  legality. 
If,  during  this  interval,  certain  effects  might  run  the  risk  of  being 
spoilt,  they  may  be  sold,  on  condition  nevertheless  that  sufficient 
security  be  given  to  cover  their  value,  in  case  the  courts  decide  that 
the  prize  must  be  released. 

Article  18 

In  case  claims  are  made,  which  give  grounds  for  the  presumption 
that  the  prize  was  taken  illegally  and  in  contravention  of  the  provisions 
of  Articles  10,  11,  12,  and  13  of  this  ordinance,  our  governors  and 
presidents  of  regency,  after  having  taken  the  necessary  testimony,  shall 
pass  upon  the  case  summarily  and  without  appeal ;  and  if  it  should 
actually  happen  that  a  vessel  brought  into  one  of  our  ports  had  been 
taken  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  neutrality,  such  a  prize  shall  be 
declared  illegal  by  our  officers  and  shall  be  restored  to  its  owner. 

Article  19 

The  belligerent  Powers  shall  not  be  permitted  to  put  ashore  in  our 
ports,  roadsteads,  or  on  our  coasts  any  individual  as  a  prisoner  of  war, 
for  immediately  on  setting  foot  on  the  territory  of  a  neutral  sovereign. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  629 

or  one  that  is  friendly  to  their  Government,  such  prisoners  must  be 
regarded  as  free,  and  all  the  military  and  civil  authorities  must  give 
them,  as  such,  protection  and  assistance. 

xA.RTICLE  20 

In  consequence  of  all  these  obligations  which  we  have  contracted 
and  the  measures  taken  for  the  protection  of  the  vessels  of  belligerent 
Powers  in  our  ports,  we  do  not  doubt  that  these  Powers  will  respect 
with  regard  to  us  the  rights  that  belong  to  a  neutral  State  and  which 
all  the  other  nations  enjoy.  We  expect  them  above  all  to  give  to  the 
commanders  of  their  fleets  and  to  the  captains  of  armed  vessels  and 
privateers  orders  not  to  molest  on  the  high  seas  Austrian  ships  laden 
with  non-prohibited  goods,  but  to  allow  them  to  continue  their  course 
freely,  if  their  papers  and  passports  are  in  order,  even  though  they 
may  be  bound  for  an  enemy  port.  And,  finally,  that  they  shall  render 
prompt  and  impartial  justice  to  our  navigators,  who  may  have  griev- 
ances against  the  commanders  of  their  war-ships  or  privateers. 

Article  21 

The  present  regulations  shall  be  published  in  the  German  and  Italian 
languages  in  all  our  hereditary  countries,  and  particularly  in  all  our 
ports  and  countries  near  the  coast,  so  that  all  our  subjects  who  are 
navigators  and  merchants  may  conform  hereto.  Our  civil  and  military 
authorities  must  also  be  guided  by  the  provisions  hereof  in  cases  which 
may  arise,  and  must  see  that  they  are  scrupulously  executed. 

Given  August  /,  iSo^. 


New  Regulations  of  Sweden  regarding  Commerce  and  Navigation 
with  Foreign  Maritime  Powers  in  Time  of  War,  January 
21,  1804^ 

We  Gustavus  Adolphus,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  Sweden,  of 
the  Goths  and  of  the  Vandals,  etc.,  heir  to  Denmark  and  Norway, 
Duke  of  Schleswig-Holstein,  etc..  proclaim  that,  desiring  to  ensure  to 


^Translation.     French  text  in  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  8,  p.  112. 


630  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Swedish  navigation,  during  the  disturbances  of  the  present  war,  all 
the  security  which  the  maintenance  of  the  commercial  relations  of 
Sweden  with  other  nations  demands,  and  having  recognized  the  neces- 
sity of  the  strictest  observance,  on  the  part  of  our  faithful  subjects 
who  are  merchants,  of  the  obligations  and  precautions,  which,  by  virtue 
of  the  formal  treaties  and  conventions  existing  between  us  and  other 
Powers,  are  required  to  ensure  to  the  Swedish  flag  all  the  rights  and 
prerogatives  which  it  should  enjoy  as  a  neutral;  and  to  avoid,  on  the 
other  hand,  everything  that  may  in  any  way  render  it  suspect  to  the 
Powers  at  war,  and  therefore  expose  it  to  insults,  we  have  seen  fit 
to  have  our  regulations  of  December  23,  1800,^  revised,  and  to  deter- 
mine and  prescribe  with  greater  precision  what  rules  must,  in  time  of 
war  between  maritime  Powers,  necessarily  be  observed  by  Swedish  navi- 
gators, if  they  desire  to  be  respected  in  their  voyages  and  to  be  con- 
sidered, together  with  their  ships  and  effects,  as  belonging  to  a  neutral 
Power.  With  this  view,  we  desire,  by  the  present  new  ordinance  on 
the  same  subject,  to  lay  down  and  prescribe  the  following  general  rules : 

Section  1 

No  vessel  shall  be  recognized  as  Swedish,  unless  it  has  been  built 
in  Sweden  or  in  some  country  under  its  rule,  except  in  the  case  of  a 
foreign  vessel  which,  having  been  wrecked  on  the  coast  of  Sweden, 
has  been  bought,  repaired,  and  equipped  by  Swedish  subjects,  or  unless 
it  shall  have  been  formally  naturalized,  as  purchased  by  a  Swede  in 
a  foreign  country.  However,  as  to  vessels  which  our  subjects  may 
have  bought  in  the  countries  of  the  belligerent  Powers  and  from  their 
subjects,  such  vessels  shall  not  be  granted  naturalization  while  the  war 
lasts ;  but  all  such  vessels  as  shall  have  obtained  naturalization  before 
the  rupture  shall  be  considered  Swedish  and  neutral,  from  whatever 
place  they  may  have  come  or  to  whomsoever  they  may  have  previously 
belonged. 

Section  2 

The  documents  which  a  merchant  captain  must  have  on  board  during 
a  voyage,  in  order  to  prove  that  his  vessel  is  Swedish,  are,  when  he 
is  to  sail  beyond  the  Baltic  Sea  and  pass  through  the  Sound,  a  con- 
struction certificate,  a  measurement  certificate,  a  so-called  Turkish 
passport  issued  by  the  Board  of  Commerce  and  a  Latin  translation 

^Ante,  p.  549. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  631 

thereof ;  an  exemption  certificate ;  a  cargo  certificate  issued  by  the 
magistrate  of  the  place;  a  passport  for  the  crew;  a  copy  of  the  oath 
of  the  owners ;  the  charter-party  signed  by  the  owner,  the  captain, 
and  the  shipper ;  a  declaration  of  the  cargo  and  of  the  freight  likewise 
signed  by  the  aforesaid  persons ;  and,  finally,  a  health  certificate,  when 
circumstances  require  it.  When  the  vessel  is  not  to  sail  beyond  the 
Baltic,  it  shall  not  require  this  so-called  Turkish  passport  with  its  Latin 
translation ;  but  all  the  documents  above  specified  must  necessarily  be 
carried  on  board  when  the  vessel  sails  for  a  foreign  land. 

Section  3 

The  captain  shall  procure  all  the  said  documents  in  a  Swedish  port 
or  a  port  belonging  to  Sweden ;  and  they  may  not  be  issued  to  a  vessel 
which  is  not  in  such  a  port,  unless  the  vessel  has,  by  chance  or  through 
an  act  of  violence,  lost  its  papers,  in  which  case  duplicates  may  be 
issued,  provided  the  captain  immediately  on  his  arrival  in  port  make 
a  formal  statement  of  such  mishap,  to  which  he  shall  make  oath,  if 
required. 

Section  4 

Captains  are  strictly  forbidden  to  have  misleading  or  false  papers 
and  bills  of  lading,  or  to  fly  a  foreign  flag  on  any  occasion  and  on  any 
pretext  whatever. 

Section  5 

The  captain  and  half  the  crew  must  be  Swedish  subjects,  in  order 
that  the  vessel  and  goods  may  be  regarded  as  Swedish  or  neutral.  But 
if  it  should  happen  during  the  stay  of  the  vessel  in  a  foreign  country 
that  the  crew,  through  desertion,  death,  or  sickness,  should  become  so 
diminished  that  those  left,  that  is  to  say,  those  remaining  in  good 
health,  were  not  sufficient  to  man  the  ship,  the  captain  shall  be  allowed 
to  engage,  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Swedish  commercial  agent,  as 
many  foreign  sailors,  preferably  subjects  of  neutral  States,  in  excess 
of  the  prescribed  number  as  he  may  need  to  continue  his  voyage. 
However,  the  number  of  subjects  of  the  belligerent  Powers  on  board 
the  vessel  shall  never  exceed  one-third  of  the  crew,  the  captain  being 
required  to  enter  every  change  of  this  kind  and  the  causes  thereof, 
on  the  muster-roll  of  the  crew,  and  the  genuineness  of  this  entry  must 
be  attested  by  the  Swedish  commercial  agent,  or  in  case  there  is  no 


632  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

such  agent,  by  the  mag-istrate,  the  notary  public,  or  other  person  of  like 
authority  according  to  the  practice  of  the  country. 

Section  6 

Swedish  vessels,  as  neutrals,  may  freely  sail  to  the  ports  and  along 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war ;  and  all  goods  on  board  neutral  vessels 
shall  be  free,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war  and  enemy 
property.  Therefore,  all  our  subjects  in  general  are  forbidden,  under 
the  strictest  accountability  and  inevitable  penalties  for  violators,  to 
engage  in  contraband  trade  with  the  subjects  of  any  of  the  belligerent 
Powers ;  and  it  is  likewise  forbidden,  under  similar  accountability  and 
penalties,  the  commanders  of  our  war-ships  and  the  captains  of  Swedish 
merchant  ships  bound  for  a  port  belonging  to  or  subject  to  either  of  the 
nations  at  war,  to  load,  to  have,  or  to  conceal  on  board  any  contraband 
of  war ;  and  in  order  to  avoid  any  ambiguity  or  misunderstanding  as  to 
what  is  properly  to  be  considered  contraband  of  this  nature,  we  declare 
that  nothing  but  the  following  goods  shall  be  included  under  this  head  : 
cannons,  mortars,  firearms,  pistols,  bombs,  grenades,  bullets  of  all 
kmds,  guns,  gun-flints,  fuses,  powder,  saltpeter,  sulphur,  breastplates, 
pikes,  swords,  sword-belts,  cartridge-boxes,  saddles  and  bridles,  except 
such  quantities  of  all  these  articles  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  defense 
of  the  vessel  and  of  its  crew.  All  other  articles  whatsoever,  not  here 
specified,  shall  not  be  considered  munitions  of  war  or  naval  munitions, 
nor  shall  they  be  subject  to  confiscation ;  and  consequently,  in  so  far 
as  they  can  not  be  considered  enemy  property,  they  shall  pass  freely, 
and  the  vessel  shall  not  be  exposed  to  the  slightest  annoyance.  Further- 
more, articles  of  commerce,  whether  finished  products  or  not,  emanat- 
ing from  countries  belonging  to  the  belligerent  Powers  shall  not  be 
considered  enemy  property  when  they  have  been  purchased  by  Swedish 
subjects  and  are  carried  for  their  account,  which  goods  are  not  to  be 
excepted  from  the  exemption  recognized  to  the  Swedish  flag  as  a 
neutral ;  but  in  the  particular  case  of  England  in  this  war,  our  sub- 
jects who  are  engaged  in  navigation  are  required  to  conform  to  the 
provisions  of  the  convention  which  was  drawn  up  between  us  and  the 
King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  under  date  of  July  25,  1803,^  and 
ratified  on  August  25  and  September  23  of  the  same  year,  for  the 
purpose  of  elucidating  Article  11  of  the  treaty  of  commerce  concluded 
in  1661  between  Sweden  and  England. 

^Antc,  p.  620. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  633 

Section  7 

It  is  forbidden  any  Swedish  subject  to  arm  vessels  to  be  used  for 
privateering  against  either  of  the  belHgerent  Powers,  their  subjects,  or 
their  property.  It  is  Hkewise  forbidden  any  Swedish  subject  to  enter 
the  service  of  foreign  privateers. 

Section  8 

It  is  furthermore  forbidden  any  Swedish  captain  to  allow  himself, 
or  the  vessel  he  commands,  to  be  employed  to  transport,  for  either 
of  the  belligerent  Parties,  troops  or  munitions  of  war  as  above  specified, 
unless  he  is  constrained  to  do  so  by  force  and  formally  protests 
against  it. 

Section  9 

When  a  captain,  who  sails  unescorted,  is  encountered  on  the  high 
seas  by  any  war-ship  or  privateer  of  either  of  the  nations  at  war  who 
may  wish  to  visit  his  vessel,  he  must  not  refuse,  nor  must  he  attempt 
to  escape  such  visit ;  but  he  is  required  to  produce  his  papers  frankly 
and  without  dissimulation,  it  being  in  such  a  case  strictly  forbidden  the 
captain  and  the  crew  to  abstract  any  documents  relating  to  the  vessel 
and  its  cargo,  still  more  to  throw  any  of  their  papers  overboard  when 
the  vessel  is  being  hailed  or  visited. 

Section  10 

The  right  to  visit  Swedish  merchant  ships  under  convoy  may  be 
exercised  only  by  the  war-ships  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  and  does 
not  extend  to  privateers,  which  do  not  belong  to  the  fleets  of  the  said 
Powers  but  have  been  armed  by  their  subjects ;  merchant  captains  being 
required  above  all  to  be  very  careful  to  follow  the  orders  and  signals 
of  the  commander  of  the  convoy,  and  to  deviate  therefrom  as  little 
as  possible.  It  is,  moreover,  necessary  that  the  owners  of  merchant 
ships  intending  to  sail  under  convoy  show  their  passports,  certificates 
or  sailing  papers  to  the  commander  of  the  escorting  ship,  in  order 
to  receive  the  instructions  that  are  to  be  given  them  as  to  their  course. 

Section  11 

No  merchant  ship  shall  attempt  to  enter  a  blockaded  port,  after  it 
has  been  formally  notified  of  the  state  of  such  port  by  the  officer 
commanding  the  blockading  fleet;  and  to  determine  what  constitutes 
a  blockaded  port,  none  shall  be  considered  such  except  a  port  which 


634  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

has  been  so  closed  by  a  certain  number  of  enemy  war-ships  stationed 
sufficiently  near  to  render  access  thereto  clearly  dangerous. 

Section  12 

A  captain  who  scrupulously  observes  all  the  rules  above  prescribed, 
shall,  according  to  treaties  and  the  law  of  nations,  enjoy  free  and 
unrestricted  navigation ;  and  if,  notwithstanding,  he  is  molested  or 
suffers  injury,  he  has  a  right  to  expect  the  most  energetic  support  on 
the  part  of  our  Ministers  and  commercial  agents  residing  in  foreign 
countries  in  all  just  claims  which  he  shall  make  to  secure  reparation 
and  indemnification.  On  the  other  hand,  a  captain  who  neglects  and 
fails  to  observe  the  orders  given  him  as  to  his  course  has  only  himself 
to  blame  for  the  mishaps  which  may  result  from  such  neglect,  and 
must  not  look  for  our  high  support  and  gracious  protection. 

Section  13 

In  case  a  Swedish  vessel  should  be  seized,  its  captain  must  deliver 
to  the  commercial  agent  or  vice  agent  of  Sweden,  if  there  is  one  in 
the  port  where  the  vessel  is  brought,  but  in  case  there  is  not,  to  the 
nearest  Swedish  agent  or  vice  agent,  a  faithful  report,  duly  certified,  of 
the  circumstances  of  the  seizure  in  full  detail. 

Section  14 

In  conformity  with  our  previous  orders,  no  foreign  privateer  shall 
be  permitted  to  enter  a  Swedish  port,  or  to  send  its  prizes  thereto, 
except  in  case  of  evident  distress.  Our  subjects  are  likewise  forbidden 
to  purchase  foreign  privateers,  which  may  have  been  admitted  to  a 
Swedish  port  for  the  above-mentioned  reason,  prizes  or  captured  goods 
of  any  kind  whatever. 

The  present  regulations  shall  be  published  wherever  it  is  deemed 
necessary,  in  order  that  no  one  may  allege  ignorance  thereof.  We 
command  and  order  all  those  whom  it  may  concern  to  conform  strictly 
hereto.  In  faith  whereof  we  have  signed  these  presents  with  our 
own  hand  and  have  hereto  affixed  our  royal  seal. 

Given  at  Munich,  January  21.  1804. 

[L.  S.]   GUSTAVUS  ADOLPHUS 

Gust.  Lagerbielke 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  635 

Declaration  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  relative  to  the  Rupture  be- 
tween Russia  and  Great  Britain,  in  which  He  proclaims  anew 
the  Principles  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  November  7,  1807^ 

The  more  the  Emperor  values  the  friendship  of  His  Britannic  Maj- 
esty, the  more  does  he  regret  to  see  that  monarch  depart  therefrom. 

Twice  has  the  Emperor  taken  up  arms  in  a  cause  in  which  the  inter- 
ests of  England  were  most  directly  at  stake.  In  vain  did  he  solicit 
that  country's  cooperation  in  favor  of  its  own  interests.  He  did  not 
ask  England  to  unite  its  forces  with  his  own;  he  merely  wished  it  to 
divert  the  enemy's  attention.  He  was  surprised  to  see  England  take 
no  action  in  its  own  behalf ;  but,  a  frigid  spectator  of  the  sanguinary 
war  which  had  broken  out  in  its  favor,  it  sent  troops  to  attack  Buenos 
Aires.  A  portion  of  its  armies,  whose  object  appeared  to  be  to  divert 
the  enemy's  attention  in  Italy,  finally  withdrew  from  Sicily  where  it 
had  assembled.  There  was  reason  to  believe  that  this  withdrawal  was 
for  the  purpose  of  making  for  the  coast  of  Naples ;  it  was  learned, 
however,  that  England  was  engaged  in  an  attempt  to  take  possession 
of  Egypt. 

But  what  sensibly  touched  the  heart  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  was 
to  see  England,  in  violation  of  the  faith  and  the  express  and  precise 
pledge  of  treaties,  molest  the  commerce  of  his  subjects,  and  at  the 
very  time  when  the  blood  of  Russians  was  being  shed  in  glorious  bat- 
tles, which  kept  all  the  military  forces  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor 
of  the  French,  with  whom  England  was  and  still  is  at  war,  busily  en- 
gaged with  the  armies  of  His  Imperial  Majesty! 

"When  the  two  Emperors  made  peace,  His  Majesty,  in  spite  of  his 
just  grievances  against  England,  did  not  cease  his  efforts  to  serve  that 
country.  He  stipulated  in  the  treaty  itself  that  he  would  act  as  media- 
tor between  England  and  France.  Then  he  proffered  his  mediation  to 
the  King  of  Great  Britain,  informing  him  that  it  was  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  honorable  terms  for  him.  But  the  British  Ministry,  ap- 
parently bent  on  loosening  and  breaking  the  ties  between  Russia  and 
England,  rejected  this  mediation. 

The  peace  between  Russia  and  France  was  to  pave  the  way  for  a 
general  peace ;  then  England  suddenly  aroused  itself  from  the  apparent 
lethargy,  in  which  it  had  lain,  but  only  to  hurl  fresh  firebrands  into 


^Translation.     French  text,  F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  la 
Russie,  vol.  11,  pp.  106,  142. 


636  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

northern  Europe,  rekindling  and  feeding  the  fires  of  war,  which  it  did 
not  wish  to  see  extinguished. 

Its  fleets  and  its  troops  appeared  on  the  coasts  of  Denmark,  com- 
mitting an  act  of  violence,  the  like  of  which  history,  so  fertile  in  ex- 
amples, cannot  show. 

A  tranquil  and  peaceful  Power,  which  by  its  time-honored  and  un- 
alterable wisdom  had  attained  a  position  of  moral  dignity  among  the 
monarchs  of  the  world,  found  itself  seized  and  treated  as  if  it  had 
been  contriving  dark  plots  and  meditating  the  destruction  of  England, 
all  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  its  total  and  immediate  spoliation. 

His  dignity  wounded,  the  interests  of  his  people  and  his  engage- 
ments contracted  with  the  Courts  of  the  north  jeopardized  by  this  act 
of  violence  committed  in  the  Baltic — a  closed  sea — whose  tranquillity 
had  long,  as  was  well  known  to  the  Cabinet  of  St.  James,  been  mutually 
guaranteed  by  the  riparian  Powers,  the  Emperor  did  not  conceal  his 
resentment  against  England  and  informed  that  country  that  he  would 
not  remain  insensible  to  its  acts. 

His  Majesty  did  not  foresee  that  when  England,  having  won  success 
with  its  forces,  was  about  to  carry  off  its  booty,  it  would  perpetrate  a 
further  outrage  on  Denmark,  and  that  His  Majesty  was  to  have  a 
share  therein. 

New  proposals  were  made,  each  more  insidious  than  the  other,  aim- 
ing to  win  to  the  British  side  Denmark,  downtrodden,  degraded,  and 
applauding,  as  it  were,  the  treatment  it  had  undergone. 

Still  less  did  the  Emperor  foresee  that  the  offer  would  be  made  to 
him  to  guarantee  this  subjection  and  to  see  to  it  that  this  act  of  violence 
should  have  no  unfortunate  consequences  for  England.  Its  Ambassa- 
dor thought  it  possible  to  propose  to  the  Emperor  that  His  Imperial 
Majesty  should  become  the  apologist  and  supporter  of  a  course  of  con- 
duct which  he  had  so  emphatically  censured. 

The  Emperor  gave  this  proposal  of  the  Cabinet  of  St.  James  no 
more  attention  than  it  deserved  and  considered  that  the  time  had  come 
to  cease  his  policy  of  moderation. 

The  Prince  Royal  of  Denmark,  whose  character  is  one  of  energy 
and  nobility  and  who  has  been  endowed  by  Providence  with  a  dignity 
of  soul  equal  to  the  dignity  of  his  rank,  apprised  the  Emperor  of  the 
fact  that,  justly  outraged  at  what  had  befallen  in  Copenhagen,  he  had 
not  ratified  the  convention  and  regarded  it  as  null  and  void. 

Now  he  has  brought  to  the  attention  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  fur- 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  637 

ther  proposals,  which  have  been  made  to  him  and  which  have  irritated 
instead  of  calming  his  spirit  of  resistance,  because  they  would  brand 
his  actions  with  the  seal  of  degradation,  which  he  will  never  endure. 

Touched  by  the  confidence  which  the  Prince  Royal  has  reposed  in 
him,  having  considered  his  own  grievances  against  England,  and  hav- 
ing carefully  examined  the  engagements  which  he  has  contracted  with 
the  Powers  of  the  north — engagements  contracted  by  the  Empress 
Catherine  and  by  His  Majesty  the  late  Emperor,  both  of  glorious 
memory — the  Emperor  has  decided  to  fulfil  his  obligations. 

His  Imperial  Majesty  breaks  off  all  relations  with  England,  he  re- 
calls his  entire  Mission  to  that  country,  and  he  does  not  wish  the  Mis- 
sion of  His  Britannic  Majesty  at  his  Court  to  remain.  Henceforth 
there  shall  be  no  intercourse  between  the  two  countries. 

The  Emperor  declares  that  he  annuls  forever  all  acts  heretofore 
concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia,  and  specifically  the  con- 
vention concluded  in  1801,  on  June  5/17.^ 

He  proclaims  anew  the  principles  of  armed  neutrality,  that  monu- 
ment of  wisdom  of  the  Empress  Catherine,  and  binds  himself  never 
to  deviate  from  that  system. 

He  demands  that  England  give  complete  satisfaction  to  his  subjects 
for  all  their  just  claims  for  vessels  and  goods  seized  or  detained  con- 
trary to  the  express  terms  of  the  treaties  concluded  during  his  own 
reign. 

The  Emperor  states  that  there  can  be  no  settlement  between  Russia 
and  England  until  the  latter  has  given  satisfaction  to  Denmark. 

The  Emperor  hopes  that  His  Britannic  Majesty,  instead  of  permit- 
ting his  Ministers  to  disseminate  new  germs  of  war,  as  he  has  done  in 
the  past,  heeding  only  his  own  feelings,  will  consent  to  conclude  peace 
with  His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  thereby  extending  to 
the  whole  world,  as  it  were,  the  inestimable  benefits  of  peace. 

When  the  Emperor  shall  be  satisfied  as  to  all  the  preceding  points, 
and  specifically  as  to  peace  between  France  and  England,  without 
which  no  section  of  Europe  can  look  for  real  tranquillity.  His  Imperial 
Majesty  will  then  be  willing  to  resume  with  Great  Britain  friendly  re- 
lations, which  in  the  state  of  righteous  indignation,  in  which  he  has 
every  reason  to  be,  the  Emperor  has  perhaps  too  long  maintained. 

Done  at  St.  Petersburg  in  the  vear  1807,  October  26th. ^ 


K4ntc,  p.  595. 

^November  7,  1807,  new  style. 


638  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Extract  from  the  British  Reply  of  December  18,  1807,  to  the  Decla- 
ration by  which  the  Emperor  of  Russia  severed  Diplomatic  Re- 
lations with  Great  Britain  and  proclaimed  anew  the  Principles 
of  the  Armed  Neutrality^ 

His  Majesty  proclaims  anew  those  principles  of  maritime  law 
against  which  the  armed  neutrality,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Em- 
press Catherine,  was  originally  directed,  and  against  which  the  present 
hostilities  of  Russia  are  denounced.  Those  principles  have  been  rec- 
ognized and  acted  upon  in  the  best  periods  of  the  history  of  Europe, 
and  acted  upon  by  no  Power  with  more  strictness  and  severity  than 
by  Russia  herself  in  the  reign  of  the  Empress  Catherine. 

Those  .principles  it  is  the  right  and  the  duty  of  His  Majesty  to 
maintain;  and  against  every  confederacy  His  Majesty  is  determined, 
under  the  blessing  of  divine  Providence,  to  maintain  them.  They 
have  at  all  times  contributed  essentially  to  the  support  of  the  mari- 
time power  of  Great  Britain ;  but  they  are  become  incalculably  more 
valuable  and  important  at  a  period  when  the  maritime  power  of  Great 
Britain  constitutes  the  sole  remaining  bulwark  against  the  overwhelm- 
ing usurpations  of  France ;  the  only  refuge  to  which  other  nations 
may  yet  resort,  in  happier  times,  for  assistance  and  protection. 

When  the  opportunity  for  peace  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia 
shall  arrive,  His  Majesty  will  embrace  it  with  eagerness.  The  ar- 
rangements of  such  a  negociation  will  not  be  difficult  or  complicated. 
His  Majesty,  as  he  has  nothing  to  concede,  so  he  has  nothing  to  re- 
quire :  satisfied,  if  Russia  shall  manifest  a  disposition  to  return  to  her 
ancient  feelings  of  friendship  towards  Great  Britain ;  to  a  just  con- 
sideration of  her  own  true  interests ;  and  to  a  sense  of  her  own  dig- 
nity as  an  independent  nation. 


'^Annual  Rcqistcr,  1807    p    774 


APPENDIX 


Declaration  of  the  Empress  of  Russia  regarding  the  Principles  of 
Armed  Neutrality,  addressed  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  February  28,  1780^ 

L'Imperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies  a  si  bien  manifeste  les  sentimens 
de  justice,  d'equite  et  de  moderation  qui  L'animent,  et  a  donne  des 
preuves  si  evidentes  pendant  le  cours  de  la  guerre,  qu'EUe  avoit  a 
soutenir  centre  la  Porte  Ottomanne,  des  egards  qu'Elle  a  pour  les 
droits  de  la  neutralite  et  de  la  liberte  du  commerce  general,  qu'Elle  peut 
s'en  rapporter  au  temoignage  de  toute  I'Europe :  Cette  conduite  amsi 
que  les  principes  d'impartialite  qu'Elle  a  deployee  pendant  la  guerre 
actuelle,  ont  du  Lui  inspirer  la  juste  confiance,  que  ses  sujets  jouiroient 
paisiblement  des  fruits  de  leur  industrie  et  des  avantages  appartenans  a 
toute  nation  neutre.  L'experience  a  cependant  prouve  le  contraire ; 
ni  ces  considerations-la,  ni  les  egards  diis  a  ce  que  prescrit  le  droit  des 
gens  universel,  n'ont  pu  empecher,  que  les  sujets  de  S.  M.  Imperiale 
n'ayent  ete  souvent  molestes  dans  leur  navigation  et  arretes  dans  leurs 
operations  par  celles  des  Puissances  belligerantes.  Ces  entraves  mises 
a  la  liberte  du  commerce  general,  et  de  celui  de  Russie  en  particulier, 
sont  de  nature  a  exciter  Tattention  des  Souverains  et  toutes  les  nations 
neutres.  L'Imperatrice  voit  resulter  pour  Elle  I'obligation  de  Ten 
affranchir  par  tons  les  moyens  compatibles  avec  sa  dignite  et  avec  le 
bien  etre  de  ses  sujets ;  mais  avant  d'en  venir  a  I'effet  et  dans  I'inten- 
tion  sincere  de  prevenir  de  nouvelles  atteintes,  Elle  a  cru  etre  de  sa 
justice  d'exposer  eux  yeux  de  I'Europe  les  principes  qu'Elle  va  suivre, 
et  qui  sont  propres  a  lever  tout  mal-entendu  et  ce  qui  pourroit  y  donner 
lieu.  Elle  le  fait  avec  d'autant  plus  de  confiance,  qu'Elle  trouve  con- 
signes  ces  principes  dans  le  droit  primitif  des  peuples,  que  toute  nation 
est  fondee  a  reclamer,  et  que  les  Puissances  belligerantes  ne  sauroient 
les  invalider  sans  violer  les  loix  de  la  neutralite,  et  sans  desavouer  les 
maximes  qu'elles  ont  adoptees,  nommement  dans  differens  traites  et 
engagemens  publics.    lis  se  reduisent  aux  points  qui  suivent : 

1)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port 
en  port  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  Puissances  en 
guerre,  soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  I'imperatrice  se  tient  quant  a  la  fixation  de  celles-ci  a  ce  qui 
est  enonce  dans  I'Art.  X.  et  XT.  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la 
Grande-Bretagne,  en  etendant  ces  obligations  a  toutes  les  Puissances 
en  guerre. 

^Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  158. 


642  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

4)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui,  ou  il  y  a,  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance  qui  1  attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

5)  Que  ces  principes  servent  de  regie  dans  les  procedures  et  les 
jugemens  sur  la  legalite  des  prises. 

Sa  Maj.  Imperiale  les  manifestant,  ne  balance  point  de  declarer,  que 
pour  les  maintenir  et  afin  de  proteger  I'honneur  de  son  Pavilion,  la 
surete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  ses  sujets  contre  qui  que  ce 
soit,  Elle  fait  appareiller  une  partie  considerable  de  ses  forces  mari- 
times.  Cette  mesure  n'influera  cependant  d'aucune  maniere  sur  la 
stricte  et  rigoureuse  neutralite  qu'Elle  a  saintement  observee  et  qu'Elie 
observera  tant  qu'Elle  ne  sera  provoquee  et  forcee  de  sortir  des  iDorncs 
de  moderation  et  d'impartialite  parfaite.  Ce  n'est  que  dans  cette  extre- 
mite,  que  sa  flotte  aura  ordre,  de  se  porter  partout,  ou  I'honneur,  I'in- 
teret  et  le  besoin  I'appelleront. 

En  donnant  cette  assurance  formelle  avec  franchise  propre  a  son 
caractere,  I'lmperatrice  ne  pent  que  se  promettre,  que  les  Puissances 
belligerantes  penetrees  des  sentimens  de  justice  et  d'equite,  dont  Elle 
est  animee,  contribueront  a  I'accomplissement  de  ses  vues  salutaires, 
qui  tendent  si  manifestement  a  I'utilite  de  toutes  les  nations  et  a  I'avan- 
tage  meme  de  celles  en  guerre ;  qu'en  consequence  Elles  muniront 
Leurs  Amirautes  et  Officiers  commandans,  d'instructions  analogues  et 
conformes  aux  principes  ci-dessus  enonces,  puises  dans  le  Code  primi- 
tif  des  peuples  et  adoptes  si  souvent  dans  leurs  conventions. 


Declaration  of  His  Danish  Majesty  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  July  8,  1780^ 

Si  la  neutralite  la  plus  exacte  et  la  plus  parfaite,  avec  la  navigation 
la  plus  reguliere,  et  le  respect  le  plus  inviolable  pour  les  traites  avoient 
pu  mettre  la  liberte  du  commerce  maritime  des  sujets  du  Roi  de  Dane- 
marc  et  de  Norwege  a  I'abri  des  malheurs,  qui  devroient  etre  inconnus 
a  des  nations,  qui  sont  en  paix  et  libres  et  independantes,  il  ne  seroit 
point  necessaire  de  prendre  de  nouvelles  mesures  pour  leur  assurer 
cette  liberte,  a  laquelle  elles  ont  le  droit  le  plus  incontestable.  Le  Roi 
de  Danemarc  a  toujours  fonde  sa  gloire  et  sa  grandeur  sur  I'estime  et 
la  confiance  des  autres  peuples :  il  s'est  fait  depuis  le  commencement 
de  son  regne  la  loi,  de  temoigner  a  toutes  les  Puissances  ses  amies. 


iMartens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  178.     See  also  Clausen,  p.  142. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  643 

les  menagemens  les  plus  capables  a  les  convaincre  de  ses  sentimens 
pacifiques,  et  de  son  desir  sincere  de  contribuer  au  bonheur  general 
de  I'Europe:  ses  precedes  les  plus  uniformes,  et  que  rien  ne  peut 
obscurcir,  en  font  foi.  II  ne  s'est  jusqu'a  present  adresse  qu'aux  Puis- 
sances belligerantes  elles  memes,  pour  obtenir  le  redressement  de  ses 
griefs ;  et  il  n'a  jamais  manque  de  moderation  dans  ses  demandes,  ni 
de  reconnoissance,  lorsqu'elles  ont  eu  le  succes,  qu'elles  devoient  avoir. 
Mais  la  navigation  neutre  a  ete  trop  souvent  molestee.  et  le  commerce 
de  ses  sujets  le  plus  innocent  trop  frequemment  trouble,  pour  que  le 
Roi  ne  se  crut  pas  oblige  de  prendre  actuellement  des  mesures  propres 
a  s'assurer  a  lui  meme  et  a  ses  allies  la  surete  du  commerce  et  de  la 
navigation,  et  le  maintien  des  droits  inseparables  de  la  liberte  et  de  I'in- 
dependance.  Si  les  devoirs  de  la  neutralite  sont  sacres,  le  droit  des 
gens  a  aussi  ses  arrets,  avoues  par  toutes  les  nations  impartiales,  etablis 
par  la  coutume,  et  fondes  sur  I'equite  et  la  raison.  Une  nation  inde- 
pendante  et  neutre  ne  perd  point  par  la  guerre  d'autrui  les  droits  qu'elle 
avoit  avant  cette  guerre,  puisque  la  paix  existe  pour  elle  avec  tons  les 
peuples  belligerants,  sans  recevoir  et  sans  avoir  a  suivre  les  loix  d'aucun 
d'eux.  Elle  est  autorise  a  faire  dans  tous  les  lieux  (la  contrebande  ex- 
ceptee)  le  trafic,  qu'elle  auroit  droit  de  faire,  si  la  paix  existoit  dans 
toute  I'Europe,  comme  elle  existe  pour  elle.  Le  Roi  ne  pretend  rien 
au  dela  de  ce  que  la  neutralite  lui  attribue :  celle  ci  est  sa  regie  et  celle 
de  son  peuple,  et  Sa  Maj.  ne  pouvant  point  avouer  le  principe,  qu'une 
nation  belligerante  est  en  droit  d'interrompre  le  commerce  de  ses  Etats. 
elle  a  crii  devoir  a  soi  meme,  a  ses  peuples,  fideles  observateurs  de 
ses  reglemens,  et  aux  Puissances  en  guerre  elles  memes,  de  leur  exposer 
les  principes  suivans,  qu'elle  a  toujours  eus.  et  qu'elle  avouera  et 
soutiendra  toujours  de  concert  avec  Sa  Maj.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les 
Russies,  dont  elle  a  reconnu  les  sentimens  entierement  conformes  aux 
siens. 

I)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port  en 
port,  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

II)  Que  les  eflfets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  Puissances  en  guerre 
soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  de  marchandises  de 
contrebande. 

III)  Qu'on  n'entende  sous  cette  denomination  de  contrebande,  que  ce 
qui  est  expressement  designe  comme  telle  dans  I'Article  III.  de  son 
traite  de  commerce  avec  la  Grande-Piretagne  de  I'annee  1670  et  dans 
les  Articles  XXVI.  et  XXVTI.  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  France 
de  I'annee  1742;  et  le  Roi  avouera  egalement  ce  qui  se  trouve  fixe 
dans  ceux-ci,  vis-a-vis  de  toutes  les  Puissances,  avec  qui  il  n'a  point 
de  traites. 

IV)  Qu'on  regarde  comme  un  port  bloque  celui  dans  lequel  aucun 
batiment  ne  peut  entrer  sans  un  danger  evident  a  cause  des  vaisseaux 
de  guerre  stationnes  pour  en  former  de  pres  le  blocus  effectif . 


644  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

V)  Que  ces  principes  servent  de  regie  dans  les  procedures,  et  que 
justice  soit  rendue  avec  promptitude,  et  apres  les  documens  de  mer,  con- 
formes  aux  traites  et  aux  usages  regus. 

Sa  Majeste  ne  balance  point  a  declarer,  qu'elle  maintiendra  ces  prin- 
cipes ainsi  que  I'honneur  de  son  pavilion,  et  la  liberte  et  I'independance 
du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  ses  sujets,  et  que  c'est  pour  cet 
effet,  qu'elle  a  fait  armer  une  partie  de  sa  flotte,  quoi  qu'elle  desire  de 
conserver  avec  toutes  les  Puissances  en  guerre  non  seulement  la  bonne 
intelligence,  mais  meme  toute  I'intimite,  que  la  neutralite  pent  admettre. 
Le  Roi  ne  s'ecartera  jamais  de  celle-ci,  sans  y  etre  force:  il  en  connoit 
les  devoirs  et  les  obligations :  il  les  respecte  autant  que  ses  traites,  et  ne 
desire  que  les  maintenir.  Sa  Majeste  est  aussi  persuadee,  que  les  Puis- 
sances belligerantes  rendront  justice  a  ses  motifs ;  qu'elles  seront  aussi 
eloignees,  qu'elle  Test  elle  meme  de  tout  ce  qui  opprime  la  liberte  natu- 
relle  des  hommes,  et  qu'elles  donneront  a  leurs  amirautes  et  a  leurs 
officiers  des  ordres  conformes  aiix  principes  ci-dessus  enonces,  qui  ten- 
dent  evidemment  au  bonheaur  et  a  I'interet  general  de  I'Europe  entiere. 

Copenhague  le  8.  Juillet  1780. 

Bernstorff 


Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark 
and  Norway,  July  9,  1780^ 

La  presente  guerre  maritime  allumee  entre  la  Grande-Bretagne  d'un 
cote  et  la  France  et  I'Espagne  de  I'autre  ayant  porte  un  prejudice  nota- 
ble au  commerce  et  a  la  navigation  des  nations  neutres,  S.  M.  I.  de 
toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norwege,  tou- 
jours  attentives  a  concilier  leur  dignite  et  leurs  soins  pour  la  siirete 
et  le  bonheur  de  leurs  sujets  avec  les  egards  qu'elles  ont  si  souvent 
manifestos  pour  les  droits  des  peuples  en  general,  ont  reconnu  la  neces- 
site,  ou  elles  se  trouvent,  de  regler  dans  les  circonstances  presentes  leur 
conduite  d'apres  ces  sentimens. 

S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  a  avoue  a  la  face  de  I'Europe  au  moyen  de  sa 
declaration  en  date  du  28.  Fevrier  1780.  remises  aux  puissances  actuelle- 
ment  en  guerre,  les  principes  puises  dans  le  droit  primitif  des  nations, 
qu'EUe  reclame  et  qu'Elle  a  adopte  pour  regie  de  sa  conduite  pendant 
la  guerre  actuelle.  Cette  attention  de  I'lmperatrice  a  veiller  au  main- 
tien  des  droits  communs  des  peuples,  ayant  ete  applaudie  par  toutes 

iMartens,  Rccueil.  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  189;  Clausen,  p.  153. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  645 

les  nations  neutres,  les  a  reunies  dans  une  cause,  qui  regarde  la  de- 
fense de  Leurs  interets  les  plus  chers  et  les  a  porte  a  s'occuper  serieuse- 
ment  d'un  objet  precieux  pour  les  temps  presens  et  a  venir,  en  tant  qu'il 
importe  de  former  et  de  reunir  en  un  Corps  de  systeme  permanent  et 
immuable,  les  droits,  prerogatives,  bornes  et  obligations  de  la  neu- 
tralite.  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  N.  penetre  de  ces  memes  prin- 
cipes,  les  a  egalement  etablis  et  reclames  dans  la  declaration,  qu'il  a  fait 
remettre  le  8.  Juillet  1780.  aux  trois  puissances  belligerantes  en  con- 
formite  de  celle  de  la  Russie  et  pour  le  soutien  desquels  S.  M.  Danoise 
a  meme  fait  armer  une  partie  considerable  de  Sa  flotte.  De  la  est  re- 
sulte  I'accord  et  I'unanimite,  avec  lesquels  A.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et  S.  M.  le 
Roi  de  D.  et  de  N.  en  consequence  de  Leur  amitie  et  de  Leur  confiance 
reciproque  ainsi  que  de  la  conformite  des  interets  de  Leur  sujets,  ont 
juge  a  propos  de  donner  au  moyen  d'une  convention  formelle  une 
sanction  solemnelle  aux  engagemens  mutuels  a  prendre.  Pour  cet  effet 
Leurs  dites  Majestes  ont  choisi  et  nomme  pour  Leurs  plenipotentiaires, 
savoir,  S.  M.  L  d.  t.  1.  R.  le  sieur  Charles  d'Osten  nomme  Sacken,  Con- 
seiller  d'Etat  actuel,  Chevalier  de  TOrdre  de  St.  Anne,  Envoye  Extra- 
ordinaire et  Ministre  plenipotentiaire  de  Sa  dite  Majeste  pres  de  la  Cour 
de  Danemarc,  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  D.  et  de  N.  le  Sieur  Otto  Cte.  de  Thott, 
Conseiller  prive  de  Son  Conseil,  Chevalier  de  I'ordre  de  I'Elephant,  etc. 
le  Sieur  Joachim  Otto  de  Schack  Rathlow,  Conseiller  prive  de  Son 
Conseil,  Chevalier  de  I'Ordre  de  I'Elephant,  etc.  le  Sieur  Jean  Henry 
d'Eickstedt,  Conseiller  prive  de  Son  Conseil,  Gouverneur  de  S.  A.  R. 
le  Prince  Royal,  Chevalier  de  I'Ordre  de  I'Elephant  etc.,  et  le  Sieur 
Andre  Pierre  Cte.  de  Bernstorff,  Conseiller  prive  de  Son  Conseil, 
Secretaire  d'Etat  pour  le  Departement  des  affaires  etrangeres,  Direc- 
teur  de  la  Chancellerie  allemande.  Chevalier  de  I'Ordre  de  I'Elephant 
etc.  Lesquels  apres  avoir  echange  entre  eux  leurs  pleinpouvoirs, 
trouves  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  ont  arrete  et  conclu  les  articles  suivans. 

Article  I 

Leurs  dites  Majestes  etant  sincerement  resolues  d'entretenir  con- 
stamment  I'amitie  et  Tharmonie  la  plus  parfaite  avec  les  Puissances 
actuellement  en  guerre,  et  de  continuer  a  observer  la  neutralite  la  plus 
stricte  et  la  plus  exacte,  declarent  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  rigou- 
reuse  execution  des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contre- 
bande  de  leurs  sujets,  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  puissances  deja  en 
guerre,  ou  qui  pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  mal-etendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande.  S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  D.  et  de 
N.  declarent  qu'elles  ne  reconnoissent  pour  telles  que  les  marchandises, 
comprises  sous  cette  denomination  dans  les  traites,  qui  subsistent  entre 


646  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND 

Leurs  dites  Majestes  et  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  puissances  belligerantes ; 
S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  se  referant  nommement  a  cet  egard  aux  Art.  X.  et 
XL  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  Grande-Bretagne,  Elle  en  etend 
les  obligations  entierement  fondees  dans  le  droit  naturel  aux  Couronnes 
de  France  et  d'Espagne,  qui  n'ont  ete  liees  jusqu'ici  avec  son  Empire 
par  aucun  engagement  formel  purement  relatif  au  commerce,  S.  M.  le 
R.  de  D.  et  de  N.  de  son  cote  se  rapporte  aussi  nommement  a  I'Art. 
III.  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  Grande-Bretagne  et  aux  Art. 
XXVI.  et  XXVII.  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  France,  et  etend 
les  obligations  de  celui-ci  a  I'Espagne,  n'ayant  point  avec  cette 
Couronne  des  engagemens  qui  decident  a  cet  egard. 

Article  III 

La  Contrebande  determinee  et  exclue  du  commerce  des  nations  neu- 
tres  en  conformite  des  traites  et  stipulations  expresses  subsistantes 
entre  les  hautes  Parties  Contractantes  et  les  Puissances  en  guerre,  et 
nommement  en  vertu  du  traite  de  commerce  conclu  entre  la  Russie  et 
la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766  ainsi  que  du  traite  de  commerce 
conclu  entre  le  Danemarc  et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  11.  Juillet  1670  et 
de  celui  conclu  entre  le  Danemarc  et  la  France  le  2Z.  d'Aoiit  1742. 
S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et  S.  M.  le  R.  de  D.  et  de  N.  entendent  et  veulent 
que  tout  autre  trafic  soit  et  reste  parfaitement  libre.  Leurs  Majestes 
apres  avoir  deja  reclame  dans  Leurs  declarations  faites  aux  Puis- 
sances belligerantes,  les  principes  generaux  du  droit  naturel,  dont  la 
liberte  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  de  meme  que  les  droits  des 
peuples  neutres  sont  une  consequence  directe,  ont  resolu  de  ne  les  point 
laisser  plus  long-temps  dependre  d'une  interpretation  arbitraire  sug- 
geree  par  des  interets  isoles  et  momentanes.  Dans  cette  vue  elles  sont 
convenues : 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  naviguer  librement  de  port  en  port  et 
sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  Puissances  en 
guerre  soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres  a  I'exception  des  marchan- 
dises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui,  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance,  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  que  sur  de 
justes  causes  et  faits  evidens ;  qu'ils  soient  juges  sans  retard ;  que  la 
procedure  soit  ton  jours  conforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque  fois 
outre  les  dedommagemens,  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux,  qui  ont  fait  des  pertes 
sans  avoir  ete  en  faute,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction  complette  pour 
I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion  de  Leurs  Majestes. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  647 


Article  IV 


Pour  proteger  le  commerce  commun  de  Leurs  sujets,  fonde  sur  les 
principes  ci-dessus  etablis,  S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et  S.  M.  le  R.  de  D.  et  de 
N.  ont  juge  a  propos  d'equiper  separement  un  nombre  de  vaisseaux  de 
guerre  et  de  f  regattes,  proportionne  a  ce  but ;  les  escadres  de  chaque 
Puissance  ayant  a  prendre  la  Station  et  devant  etre  employees  aux 
Convois,  qu'exigent  son  commerce  et  sa  navigation  conformement  a  la 
nature  et  la  qualite  du  trafic  de  chaque  nation. 

Article  V 

Si  pourtant  il  arrivoit,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  Tune  des 
Puissances,  se  trouvassent  dans  un  parage,  oil  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  la  meme  nation  ne  fussent  pas  stationnes,  et  ou  ils  ne  pourroient 
pas  avoir  recours  a  leurs  propres  Convois,  alors  le  Commandant  des 
vaisseaux  de  guerre  de  I'autre  Puissance,  s'il  en  est  requis,  doit  de 
bonne  foi  et  sincerement  leur  preter  le  secours,  dont  ils  pourroient 
avoir  besoin,  et  en  tel  cas,  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  fregattes  de  I'une 
des  Puissances  serviront  de  soutien  et  d'appui  aux  vaisseaux  mar- 
chands de  I'autre,  bien  entendu  cependant,  que  les  reclamans  n'auroient 
fait  aucun  commerce  illicite,  ni  contraire  aux  principes  de  la  neutralite. 

Article  VI 

Cette  Convention  n'aura  point  d'effet  retroactif  et  par  consequent 
on  ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  difterends  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a 
moins  qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violences  continues  tendant  a 
fonder  un  systeme  oppressif,  pour  toutes  les  nations  neutres  de 
I'Europe  en  general. 

Article  VII 

S'il  arrivoit  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs  et  les  plus  ami- 
cals,  employes  par  les  deux  Puissances  et  malgre  I'observation  de  la 
neutralite  la  plus  parfaite  de  Leur  part,  que  les  Vaisseaux  marchands 
de  S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et  de  S.  M.  le  R.  de  D.  et  de  N.  fussent  insultes, 
pilles,  ou  pris  par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  de  I'une  ou 
I'autre  Puissance  en  guerre,  alors  le  Ministre  de  la  partie  lesee  aupres 
de  la  Cour  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  auront  commis 
de  tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representations,  reclamera  les  vaisseaux 
marchands  enleves,  et  insistera  sur  les  dedommagemens  convenables,  en 
no  perdant  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation  de  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion. 
Le  Ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante  se  joindra  a  lui  et  appuyera 
ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus  energique,  et  la  plus  efficace.  et  ainsi 
il  sera  agi  d'un  commun  et  parfait  accord.  Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de  ren- 
dre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  ou  si  Ton  remettoit  de  la  rendre  d'un  temps 
a  I'autre,  alors  leurs  Majestes  useront  de  represailles  contre  la  Puis- 
sance, qui  la  Leur  refuseroit,  et  Elles  se  concerteront  incessamment  sur 
la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  d'effectuer  ces  justes  represailles. 


648  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  VIII 

S'il  arrivoit  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  de  la  presente  Convention,  ou 
pour  quelque  cause  qui  y  eut  rapport,  fut  inquietee,  molestee  ou  at- 
taquee,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu  que  les  deux  Puissances  f  eront  cause 
commune  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement  et  pour  travailler  et  agir 
de  concert  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant  pour 
I'insulte  faite  a  Leur  pavilion  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  Leurs  sujets. 

Article  IX 

Cette  convention  arretee  et  conclue  pour  tout  le  temps  que  durera  la 
guerre  actuelle,  servira  de  base  aux  engagemens,  que  les  conjonctures 
pourroient  faire  contracter  dans  la  suite  de  temps  et  a  I'occasion  de 
nouvelles  guerres  maritimes  par  lesquelles  I'Europe  auroit  le  malheur 
d'etre  troublee.  Ces  stipulations  doivent  au  reste  etre  regardees  comme 
permanentes  et  feront  loi  en  matiere  de  commerce  et  de  navigation,  et 
toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier  les  droits  des  nations  neutres. 

Article  X 

Le  but  et  I'objet  principal  de  cette  convention  etant  d'assurer  la 
liberte  generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  S.  M.  I.  d.  t.  1.  R.  et 
S.  M.  le  R.  de  D.  et  de  N.  conviennent  et  s'engagent  d'avance  a  consen- 
tir,  que  d'autres  Puissances  egalement  neutres  y  accedent  et  qu'en  en 
adoptant  les  principes,  Elles  en  partagent  les  obligations  ainsi  que  les 
a  vantages. 

Article  XI 

Afin  que  les  Puissances  en  guerre  ne  pretendent  cause  d'ignorance 
relativement  aux  arrangemens  pris  entre  Leurs  dites  Majestes,  les  deux 
hautes  Parties  Contractantes  communiqueront  amicalement  a  toutes  les 
Puissances  belligerantes  les  mesures  qu'Elles  ont  concertees  entre  Elles, 
d'autant  moins  hostiles,  qu'elles  ne  sont  au  detriment  d'aucune  autre ; 
mais  tendent  uniquement  a  la  surete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation 
de  Leurs  sujets  respectifs. 

Article  XII 

La  presente  convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  Parties  Contrac- 
tantes et  les  ratifications  echangees  en  bonne  et  dije  forme  dans  I'espace 
de  six  semaines  a  compter  du  jour  de  la  date  de  la  signature  ou  plutot 
si  faire  se  peut.  En  foi  de  quoi  nous  soussignes,  en  vertu  de  nos 
pleinpouvoirs,  I'avons  signee  et  y  avons  appose  les  cachets  de  nos  armes. 
Fait  a  Copenhague  le  9.  jour  du  mois  de  Juillet,  I'an  de  grace  mil 
sept  cent  quatre-vingts. 

(L.  S.)   Charles  d'Osten  nomme  Sacken 

(L.  S.)   O.  Thott 

(L.  S.)  J.  ScHACK  Rathlow 

(L.  S.)  J.  Eickstedt 

(L.  S.)  A.  P.  Bernstorff 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  649 

Separate  Articles  Additional  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neu- 
trality between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway  of  July  9,  1780^ 

Article  I 

Comma  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le 
Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege  sont  toujours  egalement  interessees 
a  veiller  a  la  siirete  et  a  la  tranquillite  de  la  mer  Baltique,  et  a  la  mettre 
a  I'abri  des  troubles  de  la  Guerre  et  des  courses  des  armateurs ;  Sys- 
teme  d'autant  plus  juste  et  plus  naturel,  que  toutes  les  Puissances  dont 
les  etats  I'environnent  jouissent  de  la  plus  profonde  paix;  elles  sont 
mutuellement  convenues  de  continuer  a  soutenir,  que  c'est  une  mer  fer- 
mee,  incontestablement  telle  par  sa  situation  locale,  ou  toutes  les  na- 
tions doivent  et  peuvent  naviguer  en  paix  et  jouir  de  tons  les  avantages 
d'un  calme  parfait,  et  de  prendre  pour  cet  effet  entre  elles  des  mesures 
capables  de  garantir  cette  mer  et  ses  cotes  de  toutes  hostilities,  pirate- 
ries  et  violences.  Elles  maintiendront  aussi  la  tranquillite  de  la  mer 
du  Nord  dans  leurs  parages,  autant  que  les  circonstances  et  I'interet 
de  leurs  etats  le  rendront  necessaire. 

Article  II 

Leurs  dites  Majestes  ne  desirant  aussi  rien  plus  ardemment  que  le 
retablissement  de  la  paix  sur  des  principes  equitables,  sentimens,  que 
I'amour  de  I'humanite  et  I'envie  de  prevenir  une  plus  grande  effusion 
de  sang,  leur  ont  inspire  des  le  commencement  des  dissensions,  qui 
divisent  I'Europe,  se  promettent  reciproquement  de  s'attacher  a  ce 
meme  objet,  d'aviser  aux  moyens,  qui  pourront  conduire  a  ce  but,  et 
lorsqu'une  occasion  se  presenteroit,  de  la  saisir  et  de  concourir  avec  des 
sentimens  d'amitie  et  de  confiance  a  un  ouvrage  si  salutaire. 

Article  III 

Les  situations  des  lieux  rendant  tres  court  le  terme  pendant  lequel 
les  Flottes  de  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  peuvent  agir  hors  de  la  Baltique 
pour  la  surete  du  commerce  neutre  dans  les  autres  mers ;  Sa  Majeste 
le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege  s'engage  de  recevoir  dans  ses  ports 
et  de  traiter  absolument  sur  le  meme  pied,  comme  les  siens  propres, 
tout  vaisseau  ou  batiment  Russe,  qui  y  entrera  pour  hyverner;  de  lui 
faire  fournir  de  ses  magazins  toutes  sortes  d'appareils  et  de  provisions, 
dont  Tequipage  pourroit  avoir  besoin  aux  memes  prix,  auxquels  en 
sont  fournis  les  Vaisseaux  de  Sa  Majeste ;  de  faire  prendre  en  un  mot 
tous  les  arrangemens  necessaires,  pour  que  ces  batimens  et  leurs  equi- 
pages puissent  etre  bien  soignes. 


^Martens.  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  195 ;  Clausen,  p.  161. 


650  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  IV 

Que  si  la  jonction  des  esquadres  etoit  trouvee  necessaire,  on  agira  en 
ce  cas  en  tout  d'apres  les  principes  d'une  parfaite  egalite,  et  lorsqu'un 
ou  plusieurs  vaisseaux  viendroient  a  se  trouver  ensemble,  celui  des 
Commandants,  qui  aura  le  grade  sur  I'autre  ou  bien  a  grades  egaux, 
celui  qui  sera  le  plus  ancien,  prendra  le  commandement  sur  les  vais- 
seaux de  guerre  et  fregattes  des  deux  nations.  On  tachera  en  general 
de  combiner  les  croisieres  autant  que  possible,  sans  une  jonction  for- 
melle  afin  de  former  de  cette  maniere  une  espece  de  chaine  et  de  se 
donner  la  main  au  besoin:  quant  au  salut,  ou  se  conformera  constam- 
ment  a  ce  qui  est  stipule  a  cet  egard  dans  les  conventions  entre  les  deux 
nations. 

Article  V 

A  I'epoque  plus  ou  moins  eloignee  de  la  paix  entre  les  Puissances  bel- 
ligerantes,  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  et  Sa  Majeste 
le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege  s'employeront  de  la  maniere  la 
plus  efficace  aupres  des  Puissances  maritimes  en  general,  pour  faire 
recevoir  et  reconnoitre  universellement  dans  toutes  les  guerres  mari- 
times. qui  par  la  suite  du  tems  pourroient  survenir,  le  systeme  de  neu- 
tralite  et  les  principes  etablis  dans  la  presente  convention,  servant  a 
former  la  base  d'un  code  maritime  universel. 

Article  VI 

Des  que  cette  Convention  sera  ratifiee,  et  que  I'echange  en  aura  ete 
fait,  les  hautes  parties  contractantes  prendront  soin  de  la  communiquer, 
aux  articles  separes  pres,  de  bonne  foi  et  conjointement  et  d'un  com- 
mun  accord,  par  leurs  ministres  accredites  aux  cours  etrangeres,  et 
nommement  a  celles  qui  sont  actuellement  en  guerre.  Pour  agir  avec 
une  parfaite  uniformite  pour  cette  fin,  on  joint  ici  la  formule  de  I'acte 
que  les  ministres  respectifs  remettront  a  cette  occasion. 

Ces  articles  separes  seront  censes  et  regardes  comme  faisant  partie 
de  la  convention  meme  et  auront  la  meme  force  et  valeur,  que  s'ils 
etoient  inseres  de  mot  a  mot  dans  la  dite  convention  conclue  le  meme 
jour  entre  les  deux  hautes  Parties  contractantes.  lis  seront  ratifies  de 
meme  et  les  ratifications  echangees  dans  le  meme  tems. 

En  foi  de  quoi  nous  soussignes  en  vertu  de  nos  pleinpouvoirs,  les 
avons  signes  et  y  avons  appose  les  cachets  de  nos  armes. 

Fait  a  Copenhague  le  9.  jour  du  mois  de  Juillet,  I'an  de  grace  mil  sept 
cent  quatre  vingt. 

(L.  S.)   Charles  d'Osten  nomme  Sacken 

(L.  S.)   O.  Thott 

(L.  S.)   O.  ScHACK  Rathlow 

(L.  S.)  J.  H.  Eickstedt 

(L.  S.)   A.  P.  Bernstorff 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  651 

Declaration  of  the  King  of  Sweden  to  the  Courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles and  Madrid,  July  21,  1780' 

Depuis  le  commencement  de  la  presente  guerre  le  Roi  a  eu  soin  de 
faire  connoitre  sa  fagon  de  penser  a  toute  I'Europe.  II  s'est  impose 
la  loi  d'une  parfaite  neutralite. 

II  en  a  rempli  les  devoirs  avec  une  exactitude  scrupuleuse ;  et  il  a 
cru  pouvoir  jouir  en  consequence  des  droits  attaches  a  la  qualite  d'un 
Souverain  absolument  neutre :  malgre  cela  ses  sujets  commergans  ont 
ete  obliges  de  reclamer  sa  protection,  et  Sa  Majeste  s'est  trouvee  dans 
la  necessite  de  la  leur  accorder.  Pour  remplir  cet  objet,  le  Roi  fit 
armer  un  certain  nombre  de  vaisseaux  de  guerre  des  I'annee  passee. 
II  en  employa  une  partie  sur  les  cotes  de  son  royaume,  et  I'autre  a 
servir  de  convoi  aux  batimens  marchands  Suedois  dans  les  differentes 
mers  ou  le  commerce  de  ses  sujets  les  faisoit  naviguer.  II  fit  part  de 
ces  mesures  aux  Puissances  belligerantes ;  et  il  se  preparoit  a  les  con- 
tinuer  dans  le  courant  de  cette  annee,  lorsque  d'autres  cours  qui 
avoient  egalement  adopte  la  neutralite,  lui  firent  part  des  dispositions, 
ou  elles  se  trouvoient  conformes  a  celles  du  Roi  et  tendantes  au  meme 
but.  L'Imperatrice  de  Russie  fit  remettre  une  declaration  aux  Cours 
de  Londres,  de  Versailles  et  de  Madrid,  par  laquelle  elle  les  in- 
struisoit  de  la  resolution  ou  eUe  etoit  de  defendre  le  commerce  de  ses 
sujets  et  le  droit  universel  des  nations  neutres ;  Cette  declaration  por- 
toit  sur  des  principes  si  justes  du  droit  des  gens  et  des  traites  subsis- 
tans,  qu'il  ne  parut  pas  possible  de  les  revoquer  en  doute.  Le  Roi 
les  a  trouves  entierement  d'accord  avec  sa  propre  cause,  avec  le  traite 
conclu  en  1660  entre  la  Suede  et  I'Angleterre,  et  celui  de  la  France  et 
de  la  Suede  en  1741  ;  et  Sa  Majeste  n'a  pu  se  dispenser  de  reconnoitre 
et  d'adopter  ces  memes  principes  non  seulement  par  rapport  aux  Puis- 
sances avec  lesquelles  ces  dits  traites  sont  en  vigueur;  mais  aussi  par 
rapport  a  celles  qui  se  trouvent  deja  impliquees  dans  la  presente 
guerre,  ou  qui  pourront  le  devenir  dans  la  suite,  et  avec  lesquelles  le 
Roi  est  dans  le  cas  de  n'avoir  point  de  traite  a  reclamer,  c'est  la  loi 
universelle;  et  au  defaut  des  engagemens  particuliers,  celle-la  devient 
obligatoire  pour  toutes  les  nations.  En  consequence  le  Roi  declare 
actuellement  de  nouveau,  qu'il  observera  la  meme  neutralite  et  avec  la 
meme  exactitude  qu'il  I'a  fait  par  le  passe.  II  defendra  a  ses  sujets 
sous  de  grieves  peines  de  s'ecarter  en  maniere  quelconque  des  devoirs 
que  leur  impose  une  pareille  neutralite;  mais  il  protegera  leur  com- 
merce legitime  par  tons  les  moyens  possibles,  lorsqu'ils  le  feront  con- 
formement  aux  principes  ci-dessus  mentionnes. 


^Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  185. 


652  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Convention  for  an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Sweden, 

August  1,  1780^ 

La  presente  guerre  maritime,  allumee  entre  la  Grande-Bretagne  d'un 
cote,  et  la  France  et  I'Espagne  de  I'autre,  ayant  porte  un  prejudice 
notable  au  commerce  et  a  la  navigation  des  nations  neutres,  S.  M.  le 
Roi  de  Suede  et  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies,  toujours 
attentives  a  concilier  leur  dignite  et  leurs  soins  pour  la  surete  et  le  bon- 
heur  de  leurs  sujets,  avec  les  egards,  qu'elles  ont  si  souvent  manifestes, 
pour  les  droits  des  peuples  en  general,  ont  reconnu  la  necessite  oh  elles 
se  trouvent,  de  regler  dans  les  circonstances  presentes,  leur  conduite 
d'apres  ces  sentimens. 

S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  a  avoue  a  la  face  de  I'Europe, 
au  moyen  de  sa  declaration  en  date  du  28.  Fevrier  1780.  remise  aux 
Puissances  actuellement  en  guerre,  les  principes  puises  dans  le  droit 
primitif  des  nations,  qu'elle  reclame  et  qu'elle  a  adopte  pour  regie  de 
sa  conduite  pendant  la  guerre  actuelle.  Cette  attention  de  I'lmpera- 
trice a  veiller  au  maintien  des  droits  communs  des  peuples,  ayant  eta 
applaudie  par  toutes  les  nations  neutres,  les  a  reunies  dans  une  cause, 
qui  regarde  la  defense  de  leurs  interets  les  plus  chers,  et  les  a  porte  a 
s'occuper  serieusement  d'un  objet  precieux  pour  les  temps  presens 
et  a  venir,  en  tant  qu'il  importe  de  former  et  de  reunir  en  un  corps  de 
systeme  permanent  et  immuable,  les  droits,  prerogatives,  bornes  et 
obligations  de  la  neutralite.  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede  penetre  de  ces 
memes  principes,  les  a  egalement  etablis  et  reclames  dans  la  declara- 
tion, qu'il  a  fait  remettre  le  21.  Juillet  1780  aux  trois  Puissances  bel- 
ligerantes  en  conformite  de  celle  de  la  Russie  et  pour  le  soutien  des- 
quels,  S.  M.  Suedoise  a  meme  fait  armer  une  partie  considerable  de  sa 
flotte.  De  la  est  resulte  I'accord  et  I'unanimite  avec  lesquels  S.  M.  le 
Roi  de  Suede  et  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies,  en  conse- 
quence de  leur  amitie  et  de  leur  confiance  reciproque,  ainsi  que  de  la 
conformite  des  interets  de  leurs  sujets,  ont  juge  a  propos  de  donner 
au  moyen  d'une  convention  formelle  une  sanction  solemnelle  aux  en- 
gagemens  mutuels  a  prendre.  Pour  cet  effet  leurs  dites  Majestes  ont 
choisi  et  nomme  pour  leurs  Plenipotentiairies,  savoir,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de 
Suede,  le  Sieur  Frederic  Baron  de  Nolken,  son  Envoye  Extraordi- 
naire pres  de  la  Cour  de  Russie,  Chambellan,  Commandeur  de  I'Ordre 
Royal  de  I'Etoile-polaire  et  Chevalier  de  Ceux  de  I'Epee  et  de  St.  Jean, 
et  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  Sieur  Nikita  Comte  de 
Panin,  son  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Senateur,  Chambellan  actuel  et 
Chevalier  des  Ordres  de  St.  Andre,  de  St.  Alexandre-Newsky  et  de 
St.  Anne,  et  le  Sieur  Jean  Comte  d'Ostermann,  son  Vice-Chancelier, 
Conseiller  prive  et  Chevalier  des  Ordres  de  St.  Alexandre-Newsky  et 
de  St.  Anne.  Lesquels,  apres  avoir  echange  entre  eux  leurs  plein- 
ponvoirs.  trouves  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  ont  arrete  et  conclu  les 
articles  suivans. 


^Martens,  Rccueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  198. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  653 

Article  I 

Leurs  dites  Majestes,  etant  sincerement  resolues  d'entretenir  con- 
stamment  I'amitie  et  rharmonie  la  plus  parfaite  avec  les  Puissances 
actuellement  en  guerre,  et  de  continuer  a  observer  la  neutralite  la  plus 
stride  et  la  plus  exacte,  declarent  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  ri- 
goureuse  execution  des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contre- 
bande  de  leurs  sujets,  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  Puissances  deja  en 
guerre,  ou  qui  pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  mal-entendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede,  et  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice 
des  toutes  les  Russies  declarent,  qu'elles  ne  reconnoissent  pour  telles, 
que  les  marchandises  comprises  sous  cette  denomination  dans  les 
traites,  qui  subsistent  entre  Leurs  dites  Majestes  et  I'une  ou  I'autre 
des  Puissances  belligerantes ;  S.  M.  Suedoise  se  referant  nommement 
a  cet  egard  a  I'Art.  XI.  de  son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  Granae- 
Bretagne,  et  a  la  teneur  du  traite  preliminaire  de  commerce,  conclu 
entre  les  deux  Couronnes  de  Suede  et  de  France  en  1741 ;  et  quoique 
dans  ce  dernier,  la  definition  de  la  contrebande,  ne  se  trouve  pas  nom- 
mement expliquee,  cependant,  comme  les  deux  royaumes  y  ont  stipule, 
de  se  regarder  reciproquement  comme  gens  amicissima  et  qu'au  reste 
la  Suede  s'y  est  reserve  les  memes  avantages,  dont  jouissent  en  France, 
d'ancien  droit,  les  villes  Hanseatiques,  avantages  solemnellement  con- 
firmes  par  les  traites  d'Utrecht,  le  Roi  n'a  rien  a  y  ajouter.  Vis-a-vis 
de  I'Espagne,  S.  M.  n'ayant  pas  de  Traite  particulier  avec  cette 
Couronne,  EUe  y  etend  les  obligations  des  susdits  traites,  entierement 
fondes  dans  le  droit  naturel.  S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies 
de  son  cote  se  rapporte  aussi  nommement  aux  Articles  X.  et  XI.  de 
son  traite  de  commerce  avec  la  Grande-Bretagne.  Elle  en  etend  les 
obligations,  entierement  fondees  dans  le  droit  naturel,  aux  Couronnes 
de  France  et  d'Espagne,  qui  n'ont  point  ete  liees  jusqu'ici  avec  son  em- 
pire, par  aucun  engagement  formel,  purement  relatif  au  commerce. 

Article  III 

La  contrebande  determinee  et  exclue  du  commerce  des  nations  neu- 
tres,  en  conformite  des  traites  et  stipulations  expresses,  subsistantes 
entre  les  hautes  Parties  Contractantes  et  les  Puissances  en  guerre,  et 
nommement  en  vertu  du  traite  de  commerce,  conclu  entre  la  Suede  et 
la  Grande-Bretagne  le  21.  Octobre  1661,  et  du  traite  preliminaire  de 
commerce  entre  la  Suede  et  la  France,  fait  en  1741,  ainsi  que  du  traite 
de  commerce  conclu  entre  la  Russie  et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  juin 
1766.  Sa  Maj.  le  Roi  de  Suede  et  Sa  Maj.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les 
Russies,  entendent  et  veulent,  que  tout  autre  trafic  soit  et  reste  par- 


654  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  180O 

faitement  libre.  Leurs  Majestes  apres  avoir  deja  reclame  dans  leurs 
declarations,  faite  aux  Puissances  belligerantes,  les  principes  gene- 
raux  du  droit  naturel,  dont  la  liberte  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation, 
de  meme  que  les  droits  des  peuples  neutres  sont  une  consequence  di- 
recte,  ont  resolu  de  ne  les  point  laisser  plus  long-temps  dependre  d'une 
interpretation  arbitraire,  suggeree  par  des  interets  isoles  et  momen- 
tanes.     Dans  cette  vue  elles  sont  convenues : 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  navigeur  librement  de  port  en  port  et 
sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets,  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  Puissances  en 
guerre,  soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui,  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes,  que  sur  de 
justes  causes  et  faits  evidens ;  qu'ils  soient  juges  sans  retard,  que  la 
procedure  soit  tou jours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque 
fois,  outre  les  dedommagemens,  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux,  qui  ont  fait 
des  pertes  sans  avoir  ete  en  faute,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction  com- 
plette  pour  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion  de  Leurs  Majestes. 

Article  IV 

Pour  proteger  le  commerce  commun  de  leurs  sujets,  fonde  sur  les 
principes  ci-dessus  etablis,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede  et  S.  M.  Imperiale 
de  toutes  les  Russies,  ont  juge  a  propos  d'equiper  separement  un  nom- 
bre  de  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  de  fregattes  proportionne  a  ce  but,  les 
escadres  de  chaque  Puissance  ayant  a  prendre  la  station,  et  devant  etre 
employees  aux  Convois,  qu'exigent  son  commerce  et  sa  navigation, 
conformement  a  la  nature  et  la  qualite  du  trafic  de  chaque  nation. 

Article  V 

Si  pourtant  il  arrivoit,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  I'une  des 
Puissances,  se  trouvassent  dans  un  parage,  ou  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  la  meme  nation  ne  fussent  pas  stationnes,  et  ou  ils  ne  pourroient 
pas  avoir  recours  a  leurs  propres  convois,  alors  le  Commandant  des 
vaisseaux  de  guerre  de  I'autre  Puissance,  s'il  en  est  requis,  doit  de 
bonne  foi  et  sincerement  leur  preter  les  secours,  dont  ils  pourront  avoir 
besoin,  et  en  tel  cas,  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  fregattes  de  I'une  des 
Puissances  serviront  de  soutien  et  d'appui  aux  vaisseaux  marchands 
de  I'autre ;  bien  entendu  cependant,  que  les  reclamans  n'auroient  fait 
aucun  commerce  illicite.  ni  contraire  aux  principes  de  la  neutralite. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  655 


Article  VI 


Cette  convention  n'aura  point  d'effet  retroactif,  et  par  consequent 
on  ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  differends  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a 
moins  qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violence  continues,  tendans  a 
fonder  un  systeme  oppressif  pour  toutes  les  nations  neutres  de  I'Eu- 
rope  en  general. 

Article  VII 

S'il  arrivoit  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs  et  les  plus  ami- 
cals,  employes  par  les  deux  Puissances,  et  malgre  I'observation  de  la 
neutralite  la  plus  parfaite  de  leur  part,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands 
de  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede  et  de  S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies, 
fussent  insultes,  pilles  ou  pris  par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  arma- 
teurs  auront  commis  de  tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representations,  re- 
la  partie  lesee  aupres  de  la  Cour  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  arma- 
teurs  auront  commis  de  tels  attentats,  y  sera  des  representations,  re- 
clamera  le  vaisseau  marchand  enleve,  et  insistera  sur  les  dedom- 
magemens  convenables,  en  ne  perdant  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation  de 
I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion.  Le  Ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante 
se  joindra  a  lui,  et  appuyera  ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus  ener- 
gique  et  la  plus  efficace,  et  ainsi  il  sera  agi  d'un  commun  et  parfait 
accord.  Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  ou  si 
Ton  remettoit  de  la  rendre  d'un  temps  a  I'autre,  alors  Leurs  Majestes 
useront  de  represailles  contre  la  Puissance,  qui  la  Leur  refuseroit  et 
Elles  se  concerteront  incessamment  sur  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace 
d'effectuer  ces  justes  represailles. 

Article  VIII 

S'il  arrivoit  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances,  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  de  la  presente  convention,  ou 
pour  quelque  cause  qui  y  eut  rapport,  fut  inquietee  molestee  ou  at- 
taquee,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu,  que  les  deux  Puissances  feront 
cause  commune,  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement.  et  pour  travailler 
et  agir  de  concert,  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant 
pour  I'insulte  faite  a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs 
sujets. 

Article  IX 

Cette  convention  arretee  et  conclue  pour  tout  le  temps,  que  durera 
la  guerre  actuelle,  servira  de  base  aux  engagemens,  que  les  conjonc- 
tures  pourroient  faire  contracter  dans  la  suite  de  temps,  et  a  I'occasion 
des  nouvelles  guerres  maritimes,  par  lesquelles  I'Europe  auroit  le 
malheur  d'etre  troublee.  Ces  stipulations  doivent  au  reste  etre  re- 
gardees  comme  permanentes  et  feront  loi  en  matiere  de  commerce  et 
de  navigation,  et  toutes  les  fois,  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier  les  droits 
des  nations  neutres. 


656  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  X 

Le  but  et  objet  principal  de  cette  convention  etant  d'assurer  la  li- 
berte  generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede 
et  S.  M.  Imp.  de  toutes  les  Russies  conviennent  et  s'engagent  d'avance 
a  consentir,  que  d'autres  Puissances  egalement  neutres  y  accedent,  et 
qu'en  adoptant  les  principes,  Elles  en  partagent  les  obligations,  ainsi 
que  les  avantages. 

Article  XI 

Afin  que  les  Puissances  en  guerre  ne  pretendent  cause  d'ignorance 
relativement  aux  arrangemens,  pris  entre  Leurs  dites  Majestes,  les 
deux  hautes  Parties  Contractantes  communiqueront  amicalement  a 
toutes  les  Puissances  belligerantes,  les  mesures  qu'Elles  ont  concertees 
entre  EJles,  d'autant  moins  hostiles,  qu'elles  ne  sont  au  detriment 
d'aucune  autre,  mais  tendent  uniquement  a  la  siirete  du  commerce  et 
de  la  navigation  de  Leurs  sujets  respectifs. 

Article  XII 

La  presente  Convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  Parties  Contrac- 
tantes, et  les  ratifications  echangees  en  bonne  et  due  forme  dans  I'es- 
pace  de  deux  mois,  a  compter  du  jour  de  la  date  de  la  signature,  ou 
plutot  si  faire  se  pent. 

En  foi  de  quoi  nous  soussignes  en  vertu  de  nos  pleinpouvoirs,  I'avons 
signe  et  y  avons  appose  les  cachets  de  nos  armes.  Fait  a  St.  Peters- 
bourg  le  21  Juillet/L  Aout  I'an  de  grace  mil  sept  cent  quatrevingt. 

(L.  S.)  Frederic  Nolken 
(L.  S.)   Ct.  N.  Panin 
(L.  S.)  Ct.  Jean  d'Ostermann 


Separate  Articles  Additional  to  the  Convention  for  an  Armed  Neu- 
trality between  Russia  and  Swreden  of  August  1,  1780^ 

[Ces  6.  articles  sont  de  mot  a  mot  de  la  meme  teneur  que  ceux  entre 
la  Russie  et  le  Danemarc.-  si  ce  n'est  qu'a  I'article  III.  entre  la  Russie 
et  la  Suede  il  est  ajoute:]  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  s'engage  aux  memes 
obligations  envers  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Suede;  et  ses  commandans 
dans  ses  ports  de  la  mer  Baltique  auront  en  consequence  les  ordres 
de  garder  les  memes  precedes  envers  les  vaisseaux  de  Guerre  et  tous 
les  batimens  Suedois  lorsqu'ils  en  seront  requis. 


1  Martens,  Recueil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  205. 
-Ante,  p.  649. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  657 

Russian  Memorandum  to  the  Belligerent  Powers  notifying  them  of 
the  Accession  of  Denmark  and  Norway  and  Sweden  to  the 
System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  November  7,  1780^ 

Le  soussigne  envoye  etc.  a  recu  ordre  de  sa  cour  de  communiquer 
a  celle  de  .  .  .  une  convention  arretee  et  signee  a  St.  Petersbourg 
le  28.  Juin/9.  Juil.  entre  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies 
sa  Souveraine  et  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege  le 
21.  Juill./l.  Aout  entre  S.  M.  I.  et  Sa  Maj.  le  Roi  de  Suede  qui  a 
pour  seul  et  unique  objet  le  maintien  des  droits  et  libertes  appartenans 
a  toute  nation  neutre.  Empresse  de  s'en  acquiter,  il  prie  le  ministere 
de  Sa  Majeste  .  .  .  de  vouloir  bien  la  porter  a  la  connoissance 
du  Roi.  Sa  Majeste  retrouvera  dans  tons  les  points  et  articles  de  ce 
traite  I'expression  des  principes  d'une  impartialite  et  neutralite  par- 
faites,  ainsi  que  des  sentimens  de  justice  et  d'equite,  qui  guident  cons- 
tamment  I'lmperatrice  sa  Souveraine,  et  qui  I'ont  decidee  a  prendre  les 
mesures,  propres  a  mettre  ses  sujets  a  I'abris  des  pertes,  vexations  et 
dangers,  auxquels  eux,  leur  commerce  et  leur  navigation  pourroient 
etre  exposes  par  les  malheureuses  suites  de  la  guerre  maritime,  qui 
trouble  le  repose  de  I'Europe. 

L'Imperatrice  se  flatte  et  se  promet  de  Tamitie  et  de  I'esprit  de  jus- 
tice dent  est  anime  S.  M.  .  .  .  qu'elle  reconnoitra  I'equite  et  I'in- 
tention  pacifique  de  cette  convention,  et  qu'elle  fera  tenir  la  main  a 
I'execution  des  ordres,  qu'elle  a  fait  expedier  a  tous  ses  Officiers  et  Com- 
mandants de  ses  vaisseaux  de  Guerre,  ainsi  qu'a  ses  armateurs  de  res- 
pecter les  droits  et  les  libertes  des  nations  neutres,  tout  comme  Sa 
Majeste  Imperiale  a  pourvu  a  ce  que  ses  sujets  ne  fassent  point  de 
commerce  illicite  au  desavantage  de  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  Puissances 
en  guerre. 


Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  regarding 
Their  Accession  to  the  Conventions  for  an  Armed  Neutrality 
between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway,  and  Russia  and 
Sweden,  January,  178P 

Faisons  savoir,  qu'ayant  ete  invites  d'acceder  comme  parties  Princi- 
pals contractantes  a  la  double  convention  conclue  a  Copenhague  le 
28.  Juin/9.  Juill.  entre  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  et 


^Ibid.,  p.  208. 
^Ibid.,  p.  220. 


658  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege,  et  a  St.  Petersbourg 
le  21.  Juill./l.  Aout  1780  entre  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les 
Russies  at  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Suede,  nous  certifions  formellement 
par  cette  presente  declaration,  qu'a'iant  egalement  a  coeur,  le  maintien 
de  la  liberte  Generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  neutre,  et  etant 
animes  a  cet  egard,  des  memes  sentmiens  que  leurs  dites  Majestes,  nous 
accedons  dans  la  meilleure  forme,  comme  partie  principale  contrac- 
tante  a  la  susdite  double  convention,  et  nous  nous  engageons  en  con- 
formite  de  ce  qui  a  ete  exprime  plus  amplement  dans  I'acte  d'accession 
et  Facte  separe  signe  le  24.  Decembre  1780  a  St.  Petersbourg  par  les 
Plenipotentiaires  de  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  et  par  ceux,  qui  y  ont  ete 
autorises  de  notre  part  a  toutes  les  stipulations,  clauses  et  articles, 
auxquels  nous  accedons  dans  toute  leur  forme  et  teneur. 

Nous  nous  attendons,  que  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  tous  les  Russies 
et  leurs  Majestes  les  Rois  de  Danemarc  et  de  Suede^  declareront  egale- 
ment par  un  acte  formel  d'avoir  regu  et  accepte  cette  notre  Declaration 
et  que  leurs  Majestes  Imperiales  et  Royales  nous  reconnoitrOnt  comme 
partie  principale  contractante  a  la  double  convention  de  Copenhague  et 
de  St.  Petersbourg. 

En  foi  de  quoi  cette  presente  Declaration,  qui  sera  echangee  a  St. 
Petersbourg  contre  une  pareille  d'acceptation  de  la  part  de  Sa  Majeste 
le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  de  Norvege  (de  Suede)  I'entremise  de  la  Russie 
a  ete  donnee  a  la  Haye,  sous  le  grand  sceau  de  nos  Etats  et  paraphe 
par  M.  le  President  de  I'assemblee  et  signe  de  notre  Greffier. 


Declaration  of  the  States-General  of  the  Netherlands  to  the  Bellig- 
erent Powers  regarding  Their  Accession  to  the  Conventions  for 
an  Armed  Neutrality  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way, and  Russia  and  Sweden,  January,  1781- 

L'article  X.  de  la  double  convention  de  Copenhague  et  de  St.  Peters- 
bourg communiquee  a  celle  de  Londres  (Versailles,  Madrid)  enon- 
(;ant  le  consentement  des  hautes  parties  contractantes  a  I'accession  des 
autres  Puissances,  egalement  neutres ;  Leurs  Hautes  Puissances  les 
Seigneurs  Etats-Generaux  des  Provinces-Unies  se  sont  determinees 
a  former  de  concert  avec  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies 


^Dans  rexemplaire  destine  pour  la  Suede,  c'est  la  Suede  qui  est  nommee  en 
premier  lieu,  et  dont  la  convention  est  citee  avant  celle  avec  le  Danemarc. 

-Martens,  RccueU,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  221.  La  meme  declaration  (tnutatis 
mutandis)  fut  remise  aux  Puissances  Belligerantes  par  I'lmperatrice  de  Russie, 
par  le  Roi  de  Danemarc  et  par  celui  de  Suede. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  659 

et  Leurs  Majestes  les  deux  Rois  ses  Allies,  une  union  fondee  sur  un 
systeme  juste  et  raisonable  de  neutralite  sur  mer  et  ayant  pour  but 
le  maintien  des  Interets  et  des  droits  de  leurs  sujets.  Pour  cet  effet 
elles  ont  accede  en  qualite  de  Parties  Principales  contractantes  par  un 
acte  formel  signe  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  24.  Dec.  1780  aux  conventions 
de  Copenhague  et  de  St.  Petersbourg  conclues  le  28  Juin/9  Juill.  et 
le  21  Juill./l  Aout  1780  entre  Sa  Majeste  Imp.  de  toutes  les  Pussies 
et  Leurs  Majestes  les  Rois  de  Danemarc  et  de  Suede. 

Le  soussigne  Ambassadeur  ( Envoy e)  ayant  I'honneur  de  com- 
muniquer  cet  acte  au  Ministere  de  Sa  Maj.  Britannique  (Tres-Chre- 
tienne,  Catholique)  le  prie  de  vouloir  bien  le  porter  a  la  connoissance 
du  Roi  son  Maitre:  Sa  Majeste  y  retrouvera  une  nouvelle  expression 
des  principes  d'impartialite,  dont  LL.  HH.  PP.  ses  maitres  font  cons- 
tamment  profession,  et  qui  repondent  si  bien  aux  sentimens  de  justice 
et  d'equite  qui  les  ont  decidees  a  adopter  le  seul  moyen  propre  a  met- 
tre  leurs  sujets  a  I'abri  des  pertes,  vexations  et  dangers,  auxquels  eux, 
leur  commerce  et  leur  navigation  pourroient  etre  exposes  par  les  mal- 
heureuses  suites  de  la  guerre  maritime  qui  trouble  le  repos  de  I'Europe. 

Leurs  hautes  Puissances  se  flattent  et  se  promettent  de  I'amitie  et 
de  I'esprit  de  justice,  dont  est  anime  Sa  Majeste  Britannique  (T.  C.  C.) 
qu'elle  reconnoitra  Tequite  et  I'intention  pacifique  d'une  telle  mesure, 
et  qu'elle  fera  tenir  la  main  a  I'execution  des  ordres,  qu'elle  a  fait 
expedier  a  tous  les  Officiers  et  Commandans  de  ses  Vaisseaux  de 
Guerre,  ainsi  qu'a  ses  armateurs,  de  respecter  les  droits  et  les  libertes 
des  nations  neutres,  tout  comme  LL.  HH.  PP.  ont  pourvu  a  ce  que 
les  sujets  de  la  Republique  ne  fassent  point  de  commerce  illicite  au 
desavantage  de  I'une  ou  de  I'autre  des  Puissances  en  Guerre. 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia,  for  the  Maintenance  of  the 
Freedom  of  Neutral  Commerce  and  Navigation,  by  which 
Prussia  accedes  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  May  19, 
178P 

La  justice  et  I'equite  des  principes,  que  Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de 
toutes  les  Pussies  a  adoptes  et  avoues  a  la  face  de  I'Europe  par  sa  De- 
claration du  28.  Fevrier  1780.  remises  a  toutes  les  puissances  bellige- 
rantes,  ont  determine  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse,  a  vouloir  prendre 
une  part  aussi  directe  que  possible  au  Systeme  glorieux  de  neutralite 
qui  en  a  resulte,  avec  I'applaudissement  universel  de  toutes  les  nations, 

i/fcid.,  p.  245. 


660  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

non  seulement  en  avouant  ces  principes  fondes  sur  la  justice  et  le  droit 
des  gens,  mais  meme  en  y  accedant,  et  les  garantissant  par  un  Acte 
formel.  Cette  determination  de  Sa  Majeste  Prussienne  repondant  par- 
faitement  au  desir  de  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  de 
leur  donner  une  base  stable  et  solide,  en  les  faisant  reconnoitre  solem- 
nellement  par  toutes  les  puissances,  comme  les  seuls  capables  d'etablir 
la  sCirete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  des  nations  neutres  en  gene- 
ral, leurs  Majestes  se  sont  portees  d'un  comniun  accord  a  entrer  en 
negociation  sur  un  objet  qui  les  interesse  au  meme  degre,  en  tant  qu'il 
peut  etre  approprie  au  bien  et  a  I'a vantage  de  leurs  sujets  respectifs, 
et  pour  cet  effet,  Elles  ont  choisi,  nomme  et  authorise,  savoir :  Sa  Ma- 
jeste le  Roi  de  Prusse,  le  Sieur  Comte  de  Goertz,  Son  Ministre  d'etat, 
et  Son  Envoy  extraordinaire  a  la  Cour  Imperiale  de  Russie ;  et  Sa 
Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  Sieur  Nikita  Comte  Panin, 
Son  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Senateur,  Chambellan  actuel,  et  Cheva- 
lier des  ordres  de  St.  Andre,  de  St.  Alexandre  Newsky,  et  de  St.  Anne, 
le  Sieur  Jean  Comte  d'Ostermann,  Son  Vice-Chancelier,  Conseiller 
prive  et  Chevalier  des  ordres  de  St.  Alexandre  Newsky,  et  de  St. 
Anne ;  le  Sieur  Alexandre  de  Besborodka,  Major-General  de  ces 
Armees,  et  Colonel  commandant  le  regiment  de  Kiovie  de  la  mil  ice  de  la 
petite  Russie ;  et  le  Sieur  Pierre  de  Bacounin,  Son  Conseiller  d'Etat 
actuel,  Membre  du  Departement  des  affaires  etrangeres,  et  Chevalier 
de  rOrdre  de  St.  Anne ;  lesquels,  apres  avoir  echange  entre  eux  leurs 
pleinpouvoirs  trouves  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  sont  convenus  des  Arti- 
cles suivans : 

Article  I 

Leurs  Majestes  etant  sincerement  resolues  d'entretenir  constamment 
I'amitie  et  I'harmonie  la  plus  parfaite  avec  les  puissances  actuelle- 
ment  en  guerre,  et  de  continuer  a  observer  la  neutralite  la  plus  stricte 
et  la  plus  exacte,  declarent  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse 
execution  des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de 
leurs  sujets ;  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  puissances  deja  en  guerre,  ou  qui 
pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  mal  entendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande,  Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies 
a  declare,  qu'Elle  ne  reconnoit  pour  telles,  que  les  marchandises  com- 
prises sous  cette  denomination  dans  les  Articles  X.  et  XL  de  son  Traite 
de  commerce  avec  la  Grande-Bretagne,  dont  elle  a  etendu  les  Obliga- 
tions, entierement  fondees  dans  le  droit  naturel,  aux  Couronnes  de 
France,  et  d'Espagne,  qui  n'ont  point  ete  liees  jusqu'ici  avec  son  Em- 
pire par  aucun  engagement  purement  relatif  avi  commerce.  Comme 
il  n'en  existe  aussi  aucun  de  cette  nature  entre  Sa  Majeste  Prussienne, 
et  les  puissances  actuellement  en  guerre,  Elle  declare  de  son  cote,  qu'a 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  661 

cet  egard  Elle  veut  aussi  se  conformer  envers  Elles  aux  obligations  du 
susmentionne  Traite  de  commerce  entre  la  Russie  et  la  Grande-Bre- 
cagne,  se  referant  nommement  aux  Articles  X.  et  XI.  de  ce  Traite. 

Article  III 

La  contrebande  determinee  et  exclue  du  commerce  en  conformite 
des  Articles  X.  et  XI.  du  susdit  Traite  conclu  entre  la  Russie  et  la 
Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766.  Sa  Alajeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse  et 
Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  entendent  et  veulent,  que 
tout  autre  trafic  soit  et  reste  parfaitement  libre  sur  la  base  des  prin- 
cipes  generaux  du  droit  naturel,  que  Sa  Majeste  ITmperatrice  a  re- 
clames solemnellement,  et  dont  la  liberte  du  commerce  et  de  la  navi- 
gation, de  meme  que  les  droits  des  peuples  neutres  sont  une  conse- 
quence directe ;  et  comme,  pour  ne  point  les  laisser  dependre  d'une 
interpretation  arbitraire,  suggeree  par  des  interets  isoles  et  momen- 
tanes,  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  a  adopte  et  etabli 
pour  base  les  quatre  points  suivans : 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  naviguer  librement  de  port  en  port  et  sur 
les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  puissances  en 
guerre  soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui,  oil  il  y  a  par  la  Disposition  de  la 
puissance  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes,  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  que  sur  de  jus- 
tes  causes  et  faits  evidens ;  qvi'ils  soient  juges  sans  retard ;  que  la  pro- 
cedure soit  toujours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque  fois, 
outre  les  dedommagemens,  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux  qui  ont  fait  des  pertes 
sans  avoir  ete  en  faute,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction  complette  pour 
I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion. 

Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse  accede  a  ces  principes,  les  adopte  egale- 
ment  et  les  garantit  de  la  maniere  la  plus  positive,  s'engageant  de  les 
soutenir  et  reclamer  toutes  les  fois.  que  les  interets  du  Commerce  et 
de  la  navigation  des  sujets  des  deux  hautes  parties  contractantes  pour- 
ront  I'exiger. 

Article  IV 

En  reciprocite  de  cette  accession  Sa  Majeste  ITmperatrice  de  toutes 
les  Russies  continuera  a  faire  jouir  le  commerce  et  la  navigation  des 
Prussiens  de  la  protection  de  ses  flottes,  qu'Elle  leur  a  deja  fait  ac- 
corder  a  la  requisition  de  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse,  ayant  fait  ex- 
pedier  des  Ordres  a  tous  les  Chefs  de  ses  Escadres  de  proteger  et  de- 
fendre  contre  toute  insulte  et  molestations  les  navires  marchands  Prus- 
siens, qui  se  trouveront  sur  leur  route,  comme  ceux  d'une  puissance 


662  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

amie.  alliee  et  stricte  observatrice  de  la  neutralite,  bien  entendu  cepen- 
dant,  que  les  susdits  navires  ne  seront  employes  a  aucun  commerce 
illicite,  ni  contraire  aux  regies  de  la  neutralite  la  plus  stricte  et  la  plus 
exacte. 

Article  V 

S'il  arrivoit  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs,  employes  par 
les  deux  Puissances  contractantes  pour  I'observation  de  la  neutralite 
la  plus  parfaite  de  leur  part,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  Sa  Ma- 
jeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse,  et  de  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Rus- 
sies,  fussent  insultes,  pilles,  ou  pris  par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre,  ou 
armateurs  de  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  puissances  en  guerre,  alors  le  Minis- 
tre  de  la  partie  lezee  aupres  de  la  Cour,  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
ou  armateurs  auront  commis  de  tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representa- 
tions, reclamera  le  vaisseau  marchand  enleve  et  insistera  sur  les  de- 
dommagemens  convenables,  en  ne  perdant  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation 
de  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion.  Le  Ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contrac- 
tante,  se  joindra  a  lui,  et  appuyera  ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus 
energique  et  la  plus  efficace,  et  ainsi  il  sera  agi  d'un  commun  et  par- 
fait  accord.  Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  ou 
si  on  remettoit  de  le  faire  d'un  terns  a  I'autre,  alors  leurs  Majestes 
useront  de  represailles  contre  la  puissance  qui  s'y  refuseroit  et  Elles 
se  concerteront  incessamment  sur  la  maniere  la  plus  propre  a  effectuer 
ces  justes  represailles. 

Article  VI 

S'il  arrivoit  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances  contractantes 
ou  toutes  les  deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion,  ou  en  haine  du  present  Acte, 
ou  pour  quelque  autre  cause  qui  y  ait  rapport,  fussent  inquietees, 
molestees  ou  attaquees,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu,  que  les  deux  puis- 
sances feront  cause  commune  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement,  et 
pour  travailler  et  agir  de  concert,  a  se  procurer  une  entiere  et  pleine 
satisfaction,  tant  pour  I'insulte  faite  a  leoir  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes 
causees  a  leurs  sujets. 

Article  VII 

Le  present  Acte  n'aura  point  d'efTet  retroactif,  et  par  consequent  on 
ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  differens  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a  moins 
qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violence  continues,  et  tendant  a  fonder 
un  systeme  oppressif  pour  toutes  les  Nations  neutres  de  I'Europe  en 
general. 

Article  VIII 

Toutes  les  stipulations  arretees  dans  le  present  Acte  doivent  etre 
regardees  comme  permanentes,  et  feront  loi  en  matiere  de  commerce 
et  de  navigation,  et  toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira,  d'apprecier  les  droits 
des  nations  neutres. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  663 


Article  IX 


Le  but,  et  I'objet  principal  de  cet  Acte  etant,  d'assurer  la  liberie 
generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  Sa  Majeste  Prussienne,  et 
Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  conviennent  et  s'engagent 
d'avance  a  consentir,  que  d'autres  puissances  egalement  neutres  y 
accedent,  et  qu'en  adoptant  les  principes  qui  y  sont  contenus,  Elles  en 
partagent  les  obligations,  ainsi  que  les  avantages. 

Article  X 

Afin  que  les  puissances  en  guerre  ne  pretendent  cause  d'ignorance 
relativement  aux  engagemens  pris  entre  leurs  dites  Majestes,  Elles  les 
leur  communiqueront  amicalement,  d'autant  qu'ils  ne  sont  nullement 
hostiles,  ni  au  detriment  d'aucune  d'Elles,  mais  tendens  uniquement  a 
la  siirete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  leurs  sujets  respectifs. 

Article  XI 

Le  present  acte  sera  ratifie  par  les  deux  parties  contractantes  et  les 
ratifications  en  seront  echangees  dans  I'espace  de  six  semaines,  a 
compter  du  jour  de  la  Signature,  ou  plutot  si  faire  se  peut. 

En  foi  de  quoi  Nous  les  plenipotentiaires,  en  vertu  de  nos  plein- 
pouvoirs  I'avons  signe,  et  y  avons  appose  les  sceaux  de  nos  amies. 
Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg  ce  8.   Mai   1781. 

(L.  S.)   E.  Comte  de  Goertz 
(L.  S.)   C.  N.  Panin 
(L.  S.)  C.  Jean  d'Ostermann 
(L.  S.)  Alexandre  de  Besborodka 
(L.  S.)   Pierre  Bacounin 

Articles  Separes 

Article  I 

Comme  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Prusse  et  Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de 
toutes  les  Russies  sont  toujours  egalement  interessees  a  veiller  a  la 
surete  et  a  la  tranquillite  de  la  mer  Baltique,  et  a  la  mettre  a  I'abri  des 
troubles  de  la  guerre  et  des  courses  des  armateurs,  systeme  d'autant 
plus  juste  et  plus  naturel,  que  toutes  les  Puissances  dont  les  Etats  I'en- 
vironnent,  jouissent  de  la  plus  profonde  paix.  Elles  sont  mutuellement 
convenues  de  soutenir,  que  c'est  une  mer  fermee,  incontestablement 
telle  par  sa  situation  locale,  oij  toutes  les  nations  doivent  et  peuvent 
naviguer  en  paix,  et  jouir  de  tous  les  avantages  d'un  calme  par  fait,  et 
de  prendre  pour  cet  effet  entre  Elles  des  mesures  capables  de  garantir 
cette  mer  et  ses  cotes  de  toutes  hostilites,  pirateries  et  violences. 


664  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  II 

Le  gros  terns,  ou  quelque  autre  circonstance,  pouvant  obliger  des 
batimens  Russes  a  se  refugier  dans  un  port  Prussien,  soit  pour  y  hyver- 
ner,  soit  pour  s'y  radouber,  ou  se  mettre  a  couvert,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de 
Prusse  s'engage,  de  les  y  faire  recevoir  et  traiter  comme  ceux  d'une 
puissance  amie  et  intime  alliee,  en  leur  faisant  fournir  a  un  prix  juste 
et  raisonnable,  tant  les  materiaux  necessaires  pour  le  radoub,  que  les 
provisions,  dont  Tequipage  pourroit  avoir  besoin  pour  son  entretien,  et 
de  faire  prendre  en  un  mot  tous  les  arrangemens  necessaires,  pour 
que  ces  batimens  et  leurs  equipages  soyent  traites  et  soignes  de  la 
maniere  la  plus  amicale. 

Article  III 

A  I'epoque  plus  ou  moins  eloignee  de  la  paix  entre  les  Puissances 
belligerantes,  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Prusse,  et  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes 
les  Russies  s'employeront  de  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  aupres  des 
puissances  maritimes  en  general,  pour  faire  recevoir  et  reconnoitre 
universellement  dans  toutes  les  guerres  maritimes  qui,  par  la  suite  du 
terns  pourront  survenir,  le  systeme  de  neutralite,  et  les  principes 
etablis  dans  le  present  Acte,  servant  a  former  la  base  d'un  Code  mari- 
time universel. 

Article  IV 

Des  que  cet  Acte  sera  ratifie  et  que  I'echange  en  aura  ete  faite,  les 
hautes  parties  contractantes  prendront  soin  de  le  communiquer,  aux 
articles  separes  pres,  de  bonne  foi,  conjointement  et  d'un  commun 
accord  par  leurs  Ministres  accredites  aux  Cours  etrangeres,  et  nomme- 
ment  a  celles  qui  sont  actuellement  en  guerre. 

Ces  articles  separes  seront  censes  et  regardes  comme  faisant  partie 
de  I'acte  meme,  et  auront  la  meme  force  et  valeur,  que  s'ils  etaient  in- 
serts mot  a  mot  dans  le  dit  acte,  conclu  le  meme  jour  entre  les  deux 
hautes  parties  contractantes.  lis  seront  ratifies  de  meme  et  les  ratifi- 
cations echangees  dans  le  meme  tems. 

En  foi  de  quoi  Nous  les  plenipotentiaries,  en  vertu  de  nos  plein- 
pouvoirs  les  avons  signes,  et  y  avons  appose  les  sceaux  de  nos  armes. 
Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg  ce  8.  May  1817. 

(L.  S.)   Comte  de  Goertz 

(L.  S.)   C.  N.  Panin 

(L.  S.)   C.  Jean  d'Ostermann 

(L.  S.)   Alexandre  de  Besborodka 

(L.  S.)   Pierre   Bacounin 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  665 

Act  of  Accession  of  the  Emperor  of  the  Romans  to  the  System  of 
Armed  Neutrality,  October  9,  178r 

Joseph  second,  par  la  grace  de  Dieu  Empereur  des  Remains,  tou- 
jours  Auguste,  Roi  d'Allemagne  et  de  Jerusalem,  de  Hongrie  et  de 
Boheme,  de  Dalmatie,  de  Croatia,  d'Esclavonie  et  Gallicie  et  de  Lodo- 
merie,  Archiduc  d'Autriche,  Due  de  Bourgogne  et  de  Lorraine,  Grand- 
Due  de  Toscane,  Grand  Prince  de  Transylvanie,  Due  de  Milan,  de 
Mantoue,  de  Parme  etc.  Comte  de  Habsbourg,  de  Flandres,  de  Tyrol 
etc.  etc. 

Ayant  ete  invite  amicalement  par  Sa  Majeste  ITmperatrice  de  toutes 
les  Russies,  de  concourir  avec  EUe  a  la  consolidation  des  principes  de 
neutralite  sur  Mer,  tendant  au  maintien  de  la  liberte  du  commerce 
maritime  et  de  la  navigation  des  Puissances  neutres,  qu'Elle  a  expose 
dans  la  declaration  du  28.  Fevrier  1780  remise  de  Sa  part  aux  Puis- 
sances belligerantes,  lesquels  principes  portent  en  substance : 

Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port  en 
port  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  Puissances  en  guerre 
soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres  a  I'exception  de  marchandises  de 
contrebande. 

Qu'il  ne  soit  considere  comme  telles,  que  les  marchandises  enon- 
cees  dans  les  Articles  X.  et  XI.  du  Traite  de  commerce,  conclu  entre 
la  Russie  et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766. 

Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'accorde 
cette  denomination,  qu'a  celui,  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la  Puis- 
sance, qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  suffisamment  proches,  un  dan- 
ger evident  d'entrer. 

Enfin  que  ces  principes  servant  de  regie  dans  les  procedures  et  les 
jugemens  sur  la  legalite  des  prises. 

Et  Sa  dite  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  Nous  ayant  pro- 
pose a  cet  effet  de  manifester  par  un  Acte  d'accession  formelle  non 
seulement  notre  pleins  adhesion  a  ces  memes  principes,  mais  encore 
notre  concours  immediat  aux  mesures,  pour  en  assurer  Texecution,  que 
Nous  adopterions  de  notre  cote,  en  contractant  reciproquement  avec 
Sa  dite  Majeste  les  engagemens  et  stipulations  suivans,  sgavoir : 

1)  Que  de  part  et  d'autre  on  continuera  d'observer  la  neutralite  la 
plus  exacte,  et  tiendra  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse  execution  des  de- 
fenses portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de  Leurs  sujets 
respectifs  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  Puissances  deja  en  guerre,  ou  qui 
pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

2)  Qui  si  malgre  tous  les  soins  employes  a  cet  effet,  les  vaisseaux 
marchands  de  I'une  des  deux  Puissances  fussent  pris  ou  insultes  par 
des  vaisseaux  quelconque  des  Puissances  belligerantes,  les  plaintes 
de  la  Puissance  lesee  seront  appuyees  de  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  par 


^F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Com'entions  conclus  par  la  Russie,  vol.  2,  p.  122. 


666  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

I'autre,  que  si  Ton  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  Elles  se 
concerteront  incessamment  sur  la  maniere  la  plus  propre  a  se  la  pro- 
curer par  de  justes  represailles. 

3)  Que  s'il  arrivoit,  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances  ou 
toutes  les  deux  ensemble  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  du  present  accord 
fut  inquietee,  molestee  ou  attaquee,  qu  alors  Elles  feront  cause  com- 
mune entre  Elles  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement,  et  pour  travailler 
de  concert  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant  pour 
I'insulte  faite  a  Leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  Leurs 
sujets. 

4)  Que  ces  stipulations  seront  consideres  de  part  et  d'autre  comme 
permanentes  et  faisans  regie  toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier 
les  droits  de  neutralite. 

5)  Que  les  deux  Puissances  communiqueront  amicalement  Leur 
present  concert  mutuel  a  toutes  les  Puissances,  qui  sont  actuellement 
en  guerre. 

Nous  voulant  par  un  effet  de  I'aniitie  sincere,  qui  Nous  unit  heu- 
reusement  a  S.  M.  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies,  ainsi  que  pour 
le  bien-etre  de  I'Europe  en  general,  et  de  nos  pays  et  sujets  en  parti- 
culier,  contribuer  de  Notre  cote  a  I'execution  de  viies,  de  principes 
et  de  mesures  aussi  salutaires  que  conformes  aux  notions  les  plus 
evidentes  du  droit  des  gens,  avons  resolu  d'y  acceder,  comme  Nous  y 
accedons  formellement  en  vertu  du  present  Acte,  promettant  et  Nous 
engageant  solemnellement,  de  meme  que  Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de 
toutes  les  Russies  s'engage  envers  Nous  d'observer,  executer  et  garantir 
tous  les  points  et  stipulations  ci-dessus. 

En  foy  de  quoi  Nous  avons  signes  la  presente  de  Notre  propre  main 
et  I'avons  muni  de  Notre  sceau. 

Donne  a  Vienne  le  9.  Octobre  1781. 

(L.  S.)  JOSEPH 

W.  Kaunitz-Rietbfrg 

Ant.  Spielmann 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Portugal  for  the  Maintenance  of 
the  Freedom  of  Neutral  Commerce  and  Navigation,  by  which 
Portugal  accedes  to  the  System  of  Armed  Neutrality,  July  24, 
1782^ 

Sa  Maj.  Imp.  de  toutes  les  Russies  ayant  invite  S.  M.  la  Reine  de 
Portugal  de  concourir  avec  elle  a  la  consolidation  des  principes  de  neu- 

^Martens,  Rccueil.  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  263. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  667 

tralite  sur  mer  et  au  maintien  de  la  liberte  du  commerce  maritime  et 
de  la  navigation  des  Puissances  neutres,  conformement  a  sa  declara- 
tion du  28.  Fevrier  1780  remise  de  sa  part  aux  Puissances  bellige- 
rantes ;  la  Reine  par  un  effet  de  I'amitie  sincere  qui  unit  S.  M.  Imp. 
a  S.  M.  tres-fidele,  aussi  bien  que  pour  I'interet  de  I'Europe  en  Gene- 
ral et  celui  de  ses  pays  et  sujets  en  particulier,  a  voulu  contribuer  de 
son  cote  a  I'execution  des  principes  et  des  mesures  aussi  salutaires  que 
conformes  aux  notions  les  plus  evidentes  du  droit  des  gens.  Et  en 
consequence  elle  s'est  determinee  a  nommer,  de  concert  avec  S.  M.  la 
Reine  de  Portugal,  des  Plenipotentiaires,  et  de  les  charger  de  conclure 
une  Convention,  dont  I'esprit  et  le  contenu  repondroient  en  toutes 
choses  a  ces  memes  intentions. 

Pour  cet  effet  Leurs  dites  Majestes  ont  choisi,  nomme  et  authorise, 
S.  M.  Imp.  de  toutes  les  Russies  le  Sr.  Jean  Comte  d'Ostermann  Son 
Vice-chancelier,  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Senateur  et  Chevalier  des  or- 
dres  de  St.  Alexandre  Nevsky  et  de  St.  Anne;  le  Sr.  Alexandre  Bez- 
borodko,  Major  General  de  ses  armees,  Membre  du  departement  des 
affaires  etrangeres,  et  Colonel  commandant  le  regiment  de  Kiovie,  de 
la  milice  de  la  Petite-Russie ;  et  le  Sr.  Pierre  de  Bacounin,  son  Conseil- 
ler d'Etat  actuel,  Membre  du  departement  des  affaires  etrangeres,  et 
Chevalier  de  I'Ordre  de  Ste.  Anne:  Et  S.  M.  la  Reine  de  Portugal  le 
Sr.  Frangois  Joseph  d'Horta-Machado  de  son  Conseil,  et  son  Ministre 
Plenipotentiaire  aupres  de  la  Cour  Imperiale  de  Russie ;  lesquels  apres 
avoir  echange  entre  eux  leurs  pleinpouvoirs  trouves  en  bonne  et  due 
forme,  sont  convenus  des  Articles  suivans. 

Article  I 

Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  Tres- 
Fidele,  convaincues  de  la  solidite  et  de  I'evidence  invincible  des  prin- 
cipes, exposes  dans  la  susdite  declaration  du  28.  Fevr.  1780  et  qui  se 
reduisent  en  substance  aux  5.  points  qui  suivent: 

1)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port 
en  port  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  et  marchandises,  appartenans  aux  sujets  de  Puis- 
sances en  guerre,  soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception 
des  marchandises  de  contrebande ; 

3)  Qu'il  ne  soit  considere  comme  tel  que  les  marchandises  enoncees 
dans  les  Art.  X.  et  XI.  du  traite  de  commerce  conclu  entre  la  Russie 
et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766: 

4)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance,  qui  I'attaque  avec  un  nombre  proportionne  de  vaisseaux 
suffisamment  proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer: 

5)  Enfin  que  ces  principes  servent  de  regie  dans  les  procedures  et 
dans  les  jugemens  sur  la  legalite  des  prises: 

Leurs   dites   Majestes   declarent,  que   non  seulement  elles   donnent 


668  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

leur  pleine  adhesion  aux  memes  principes,  mais  que  dans  toutes  les 
occasions  elles  concourront  efficacement  pour  les  maintenir  dans  toute 
leur  force  et  vigueur,  et  pour  veiller  a  leur  execution  la  plus  exacte. 

Article  II 

Par  la  presente  Convention  il  ne  sera  deroge  en  rien  aux  traites 
actuellement  subsistans  entre  la  Cour  de  Russie  ou  de  Portugal  avec 
telle  autre  Cour  de  I'Europe  que  ce  puisse  etre :  Mais  ces  traites  et  les 
stipulations  y  contenues  continueront  a  avoir  pour  I'une  et  pour  I'autre 
la  meme  force  obligatoire  comme  du  passe,  sans  que  cette  convention 
puisse  jamais  les  invalider,  ni  encore  moins  les  enfreindre. 

Article  III 

Les  deux  Hautes  Puissances  contractantes  continueront  a  observer 
la  neutralite  la  plus  exacte  et  tiendront  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse 
execution  des  defenses,  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de 
leurs  sujets  respectifs,  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  Puissances  deja  en 
guerre,  ou  qui  pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite,  en  comprenant  nom- 
mement  sous  la  rubrique  de  contrebande  ce  qui  dans  les  articles  ci- 
dessus  allegues  X.  et  XI.  du  traite  de  commerce,  conclu  entre  la  Russie 
et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766,  est  requte  pour  tel. 

Article  IV 

Si,  malgre  les  soins  employes  a  cet  effet,  les  vaisseaux  marchands 
Russes  ou  Portugais  fussent  pris  ou  insultes  par  des  vaisseaux  quel- 
conques  des  Puissances  belligerantes,  les  plaintes  et  representations  de 
la  Puissance  lesee  seront  appuyees  de  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  par 
I'autre :  Et,  si  contre  toute  attente  on  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces 
plaintes,  elles  se  concerteront  incessamment  sur  la  maniere  la  plus 
propre  a  se  procurer  une  indemnisation  par  de  justes  represailles. 

Article  V 

S'il  arrivoit  que  Tune  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  de  la  presente  convention, 
fussent  inquietees  ou  molestees,  alors  elles  feront  cause  commune  en- 
tre elles  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement,  et  pour  travailler  de  con- 
cert a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant  pour  I'insulte 
faite  a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs  sujets. 

Article  VI 

Les  presentes  stipulations  seront  considerees  de  part  et  d'autre 
comme  permanentes  et  faisant  regie  toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'ap- 
precier  les  droits  de  neutralite. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  669 

Article  VII 

Les  Puissances  communiqueront  amicalement  leur  present  accord 
mutuel  a  toutes  les  Puissances  qui  sont  actuellement  en  guerre. 

Article  VIII 

La  presente  Convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  Parties  contrac- 
tantes,  et  les  ratifications  en  seront  echangees  dans  I'espace  de  quatre 
mois  a  compter  du  jour  de  la  signature,  ou  plutot  si  faire  se  peut. 

En  foi  de  quoi  Nous  les  Plenipotentiaires  en  vertu  de  nos  plein- 
pouvoirs,  I'avons  signee  et  y  avons  appose  les  sceaux  de  nos  armes. 
Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg  le  13.  Juillet  1782. 

(L.  S.)   CoMTE  Jean  d^Ostermann 

(L.  S.)  Alexandre  de  Bezborodko 

(L.  S.)   Pierre  de  Bacounin 

(L.  S.)  Franc.   Joseph   d'Horta   Machado 


Act  by  which  the  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies  Accedes  to  the  System 
of  Armed  Neutrality,  February  21,  1783^ 

Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  occupee  du  soin  genereux 
de  consolider  les  vrais  principes  du  droit  des  neutres  sur  mer,  tendans 
a  maintenir  la  liberte  de  leur  navigation  et  du  commerce  maritime, 
exposes  dans  sa  declaration  du  28.  Fevrier  1780,  remise  aux  Puissances 
alors  en  guerre,  a  remarque  avec  la  plus  grande  satisfaction,  combien 
I'adhesion  successive  de  differentes  Puissances  aux  memes  principes  a 
etendu  leur  effet  salutaire.  Par  ce  motif  et  par  celui  d'une  juste  con- 
fiance  dans  I'amitie  de  Sa  Majeste  Sicilienne,  Elle  s'est  determinee  a 
I'inviter  egalement  a  raltermir  par  son  aveu  un  ouvrage  d'une  telle 
importance ;  et  Sa  dite  Majeste  ayant  reconnu  dans  cette  demarche 
autant  une  marque  d'amitie,  qu'un  sentiment  de  juste  confiance  envers 
Elle,  dans  la  persuasion  que  les  dits  principes  etoient  parfaitement  con- 
formes  a  ceux  qu'elle  a  constamment  suivis  de  meme  que  Son  Auguste 
Pere  des  le  moment  qu'il  avoit  rappelle  a  I'existence  independante  la 
Monarchic  de  Ses  Royaumes,  et  tels  qu'on  les  reconnoit  evidemment 
dans  ses  Traites  avec  la  Suede  de  I'annee  1742,  avec  le  Danemarc  de 
1748,  avec  les  Etats-Generaux  des  Provinces-Unies  de  1753,  les  seuls 
Traites  stipules  depuis  I'epoque  que  les  dits  Royaumes  ont  cesse  d'ap- 


iMartens,  Rccucil,  2d  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  267. 


670  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

partenir  a  d'autres  Souverainetes,  n'a  pas  hesite  d'y  repondre  avec 
empressement. 

Pour  cet  effet  leurs  Majestes  ont  juge  a  propos  de  conclure  un  acte 
formel,  dans  lequel  se  trouveroient  consignes  les  susdits  principes,  et 
ont  nomme  pour  Leurs  Plenipotentiaires,  savoir:  Sa  Majeste  Impe- 
riale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  Sieur  Jean  Comte  d'Ostermann,  Son 
Vice-Chancelier,  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Senateur  et  Chevalier  des 
ordres  de  St.  Alexandre  Nevsky,  de  St.  Wladimir  de  la  premiere 
classe,  et  de  Ste.  Anne;  le  Sieur  Alexandre  de  Bezborodko,  General- 
Major  de  Ses  armees,  Membre  du  College  des  affaires  etrangeres, 
Colonel  commandant  le  Regiment  de  Kiovie  de  la  milice  de  la  Petite 
Russia,  Chevalier  de  I'ordre  de  St.  Wladimir  de  la  premiere  classe; 
le  Sieur  Pierre  de  Bacounin  Son  Conseiller  d'Etat  actuel,  membre 
du  College  des  affaires  etrangeres,  Chevalier  de  I'ordre  de  St.  Wladimir 
de  la  seconde  classe  et  de  celui  de  Ste.  Anne;  et  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi 
des  deux  Sicilies  Don  Muzio  Gaeta  Due  de  St.  Nicolas,  Son  Gentil- 
homme  de  la  Chambre  en  fonction  et  Son  Ministre  Plenipotentiaire 
aupres  de  la  Cour  Imperiale  de  Russie,  lesquels,  apres  avoir  echange 
entre  eux  leurs  Pleinpouvoirs  trouves  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  sont 
convenus  des  Articles  suivans : 

Article  I 

Sa  Majeste  I'lmperatrice  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le 
Roi  des  deux  Siciles,  convaincus  de  la  solidite  et  de  I'evidence  invin- 
cible des  principes  exposes  dans  la  susdite  declaration  du  28.  Fevrier 
1780,  et  qui  se  reduisent  en  substance  aux  cinq  points  qui  suivent : 

1 )  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  puissent  naviguer  librement  de  port  en 
port  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  et  marchandises,  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  Puis- 
sances en  guerre  soyent  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception 
de  la  contrebande  de  guerre. 

3)  Qu'il  ne  soit  considere  comme  telle,  que  les  marchandises  enon- 
cees  dans  les  Articles  X.  et  XI.  du  Traite  de  commerce  conclu  entre  la 
Russie  et  la  Grande-Bretagne  le  20.  Juin  1766. 

4)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui  ou  il  y  a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance  qui  I'attaque  avec  un  nombre  proportionne  de  vaisseaux  suf- 
fisamment  proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

5)  Enfin  que  ces  principes  servant  de  regie  dans  les  procedures  et 
les  jugemens  sur  la  legalite  des  prises,  ne  derogent  aux  Traites  sub- 
sistans  actuellement  entre  Leurs  Majestes,  et  d'autres  Puissances,  mais 
qu'ils  les  consolident  encore  d'avantage. 

Leurs  dites  Majestes  declarent,  que  non  seulement  Elles  donnent 
Leur  pleine  adhesion  aux  memes  principes,  mais  que  dans  toutes  les 
occasions  Elles  concourrent  efficacement  pour  les  maintenir  dans  toute 
leur  force  et  vigueur  et  pour  veiller  a  leur  execution  la  plus  exacte. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  671 


Article  II 


Dans  toute  guerre,  a  laquelle  les  Hautes  Parties  Contractantes,  en 
observant  une  parfaite  neutralite,  ne  prendront  point  de  part,  on  tien- 
dra  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse  execution  des  defenses  portees  contre 
le  commerce  de  contrebande  de  Leurs  sujets  respectifs,  avec  qui  que 
ce  soit  des  Puissances  deja  en  guerre,  ou  qui  pourroient  y  entrer  dans 
la  suite. 

Article  III 

La  contrebande  de  guerre,  dont  le  commerce  est  defendu  aux  na- 
tions neutres,  sera  entendue  autant  selon  les  termes  des  Traites  sub- 
sistans  entre  la  Russie  et  la  Grande-Bretagne  de  1766,  que  selon  les 
termes  des  Traites  en  vigueur  entre  les  Deux  Siciles  et  le  Danemarc, 
la  Suede  et  la  Hollande. 

Article  IV 

Si  malgre  tous  les  soins  a  employer  a  cet  effet,  les  vaisseaux  mar- 
chands  de  Tune  des  deux  Puissances  fussent  pris  ou  insultes  par  des 
vaisseaux  quelconques  des  Puissances  belligerantes,  les  plaintes  de  la 
Puissance  lesee  seront  appuyees  de  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  par 
I'autre ;  et  si  Ton  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  Elles  se 
concerteront  incessament  sur  la  maniere  la  plus  propre  pour  obtenir  a 
Leurs  sujets  une  indemnisation  pleniere. 

Article  V 

S'il  arrivoit,  que  Tune  ou  I'autre  des  deux  Puissances,  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  du  present  accord,  fut  in- 
quietee,  molestee  ou  attaquee,  alors  Elles  feront  cause  commune  entre 
Elles  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement  et  pour  travailler  de  concert  a 
se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant  pour  I'insulte  faite 
a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs  sujets. 

Article  VI 

Ces  stipulations  seront  considerees  de  part  et  d'autre  comme  perma- 
nentes  et  faisant  regie  toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier  les  droits 
de  neutralite. 

Article  VII 

Les  deux  Puissances  communiqueront  amicalement  Leur  present  ac- 
cord mutuel  a  toutes  les  Puissances  Europeennes  en  general. 

Article  VIII 

Le  present  acte  sera  ratifie  par  les  deux  Parties  contractantes,  et  les 
ratifications  en  seront  echangees  dans  I'espace  de  quatre  mois,  a  comp- 
ter du  jour  de  la  signature,  ou  plutot  si  faire  se  peut. 


672  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

En  foi  de  quoi,  Nous,  les  Plenipotentiaires,  en  vertu  de  nos  Plein- 
pouvoirs,  I'avons  signe  et  y  avons  appose  les  sceaux  de  nos  armes. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg  le  10.  Fevrier  1783. 

(L.  S.)   CoMTE  Jean  d'Ostermann 

(L.  S.)  Alexandre  de  Bezborodko 

(L.  S.)     Pierre  de  Bacounin 

(L.  S.)   Muzio  Gaeta  Due  de  St.  Nicolas 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Sweden  for  the  Reestablishment  of 
an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  16,  1800^ 

Au  nom  de  la  tres-sainte  et  indivisible  Trinite. 

La  liberie  de  la  navigation  de  la  siirete  du  commerce  des  puissances 
neutres  ayant  ete  compromises  et  les  principes  du  droit  des  nations 
meconnus  dans  la  presente  guerre  maritime,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de 
Suede,  et  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  guides  par  leur 
amour  pour  la  justice,  et  par  une  egale  sollicitude  pour  tout  ce  qui  pent 
concourir  a  la  prosperite  publique  dans  leurs  etats.  ont  juge  convenable 
de  donner  une  nouvelle  sanction  aux  principes  de  neutralite,  qui,  in- 
destructibles  dans  leur  essence,  ne  sollicitent  que  le  concours  des  gou- 
vernemens  interesses  a  leur  maintien,  pour  les  faire  respecter.  Dans 
cette  vue,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale,  a  manifeste,  par  la  declaration  du 
15.  aout  aux  cours  du  Nord,  qu'un  meme  interet  engage  a  des  mesures 
uniformes  dans  de  pareilles  circonstances,  combien  il  iui  tenoit  a  coeur 
de  retablir  dans  son  inviolabilite,  le  droit  commun  a  tous  les  peuples, 
de  naviguer  et  commercer  librement  et  independamment  des  interets 
momentanes  des  parties  belligerantes.  Sa  Majeste  suedoise  partageoit 
les  voeux  et  les  sentimens  de  son  auguste  allie,  et  une  heureuse  analogic 
d'interets,  en  cimentant  leur  confiance  reciproque,  a  determine  la  reso- 
lution de  retablir  le  systeme  de  la  neutralite  armee,  qui  avoit  ete  suivi 
avec  tant  de  succes  pendant  la  derniere  guerre  d'Amerique,  en  re- 
nouvellement  ses  maximes  bienfaisantes  dans  une  nouvelle  convention, 
adaptee  aux  circonstances  actuelles. 

Pour  cet  effet,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  et  Sa  Majeste  imperiale 
de  toutes  les  Russies  ont  nomme  pour  leurs  plenipotentiaires,  savoir: 
Sa  Majeste  suedoise  Mr.  le  baron  Court  de  Stedingk,  un  des  seigneurs 
du  royaume  de  Suede,  son  ambassadeur  extraordinaire  aupres  de  Sa 
Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  lieutenant-general  dans  ses 
armees,  chambellan  de  la  reine  douairiere,  colonel  d'un  regiment  d'in- 


^Martens,  Rccucil,  2d  cd.,  vol.  7,  p.  173. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  673 

fanterie,  chevalier  commandeur  de  ses  ordres,  chevalier  grand-croix 
de  son  ordre  de  I'Epee,  et  chevalier  de  I'ordre  de  France  pour  les 
merites  militaires :  et  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  Mr. 
le  comte  Theodor  de  Rostopsin,  son  conseiller  prive  actuel,  membre  de 
son  conseil,  principal-ministre  du  college  des  Affaires  etrangeres,  di- 
recteur-general  des  postes  de  I'empire,  grand-chancelier  et  grand-croix 
de  I'ordre  souverain  de  St.  Jean  de  Jerusalem,  chevalier  des  ordres  de 
St.  Andre,  de  St.  Alexandre-Newsky  et  de  St.  Anne  de  la  premiere 
classe,  de  ceux  de  St.  Lazare,  de  I'annonciade,  de  St.  Maurice  et  de 
St.  Lazare,  de  St.  Ferdinand  et  de  St.  Hubert ;  lesquels  apres  I'echange 
de  leurs  pleinpouvoirs  respectif  s  sont  convenus  des  articles  suivans : 

Article  I 

Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  et  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les 
Russies  declarent,  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse  execution 
des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de  leurs 
sujets,  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  puissances  deja  en  guerre  ou  qui  pour- 
roient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  malentendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  et  Sa  Majeste 
imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  declarent,  qu'elles  ne  reconnoissent 
pour  telle  que  les  objets  suivans,  savoir:  canons,  mortiers,  amies  a 
feu,  pistolets,  bomb^s,  grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres  a  feu, 
meches,  poudre,  salpetre,  soufre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceinturons, 
gibernes,  selles  et  brides,  en  exceptant  toutefois  la  quantite,  qui  peut 
etre  necessaire  pour  la  defense  du  vaisseau  et  de  ceux  qui  en  compo- 
sent  I'equipage ;  et  tous  les  autres  articles  quelconques  non  designes 
ici,  ne  seront  pas  reputes  munitions  de  guerre  et  navales  ni  sujets  a 
confiscation,  et  par  consequent  passeront  librement  sans  etre  assujet- 
tis  a  la  moindre  difficulte.  II  est  aussi  convenu  que  le  present  article 
ne  portera  aucun  prejudice  aux  stipulations  particulieres  des  traites 
anterieurs  avec  les  parties  belligerantes,  par  lesquels  des  objets  de 
pareil  genre  seroient  reserves,  prohibes  ou  permis. 

Article  III 

Tout  ce  qui  peut  etre  objet  de  contrebande  etant  ainsi  determine  et 
exclu  du  commerce  des  nations  neutres,  d'apres  le  dispositif  de  I'article 
precedent,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  et  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de 
toutes  les  Russies  entendent  et  veulent,  que  tout  autre  trafic  soit  et 
reste  parfaitement  libre.  Leurs  Majestes,  pour  mettre  sous  une  sauve- 
garde  suffisante  les  principes  generaux  du  droit  naturel,  dont  la  liberte 
du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  de  meme  que  les  droits  des  peuples 
neutres  sont  une  consequence  directe,  ont  resolu,  de  ne  les  point  laisser 


674  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

plus  longtems  dependre  dune  interpretation  arbitraire,  suggeree  par 
des  interets  isoles  et  momentanes.  Dans  cette  vue  elles  sont  con- 
venues  : 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  naviguer  librement  de  port  en  port,  et 
sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  puissances  en 
guerre  soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qua  celui,  ou  il  y  a,  par  la  disposition  de  la 
puissance  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer,  et  que  tout  batiment  naviguant 
vers  un  port  bloque  ne  pourra  etre  regarde  d'avoir  contrevenu  a  la 
presente  convention,  que,  lorsqu'apres  avoir  ete  averti  par  le  comman- 
dant du  blocus  de  Tetat  du  port,  il  tachera  d'y  penetrer  en  employant 
la  force  ou  la  ruse. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  que  sur  de 
justes  causes  et  faits  evidents,  qu'ils  soyent  juges  sans  retard,  que  la 
procedure  soit  toujours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque 
fois,  outre  les  dedommagemens  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux  qui  ont  fait  des 
pertes,  sans  avoir  ete  en  contrevention,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction 
complete  pour  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion  de  leurs  Majestes. 

5)  Que  la  declaration  de  I'officier  commandant  le  vaisseau  ou  les 
vaisseaux  de  la  marine  royale  ou  imperiale,  qui  accompagneront  le 
convoi  d'un  ou  de  plusieurs  batimens  marcbands,  que  son  convoi  n'a  a 
bord  aucune  marcbandise  de  contrebande,  doit  suffire  pour  qu'il  n'y 
ait  lieu  a  aucune  visite  sur  son  bord  ni  a  celui  des  batimens  de  son 
convoi. 

Pour  assurer  d'autant  mieux  a  ces  principes  le  respect  du  a  des 
stipulations  dictees  par  le  desir  desinteresse,  de  maintenir  les  droits 
imprescriptibles  de  nations  neutres,  et  donner  une  nouvelle  preuve  de 
leur  loyaute  et  de  leur  amour  pour  la  justice,  les  hautes  parties  con- 
tractantes  prennent  ici  I'engagement  le  plus  formel,  de  renouveller  les 
defenses  les  plus  severes  a  leurs  capitaines,  soit  de  haut  bord,  soit  de 
la  marine  marchande,  de  charger,  tenir,  ou  receler  a  leurs  bords  aucun 
des  objets,  qui,  aux  termes  de  la  presente  convention,  pourroient  etre 
reputes  de  contrebande,  et  de  tenir  respectivement  la  main  a  I'execu- 
tion  des  ordres  qu'elles  seront  publier  dans  leurs  amirautes  et  partout 
oil  besoin  sera,  a  I'effet  de  quoi  I'ordonnance,  qui  renouvellera  cette 
defense  sous  les  peines  les  plus  graves,  sera  imprimee  a  la  suite  du 
present  acte,  pour  qu'il  n'en  puisse  etre  pretendu  cause  d'ignorance. 

Article  IV 

Pour  proteger  le  commerce  commun  de  leurs  sujets,  sur  le  fonde- 
ment  des  principes  ci-dessus  etablis,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  et  Sa 
Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  ont  juge  a  propos  d'equiper 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  675 

separement  un  nombre  de  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  de  fregates  propor- 
tionne  a  ce  but ;  les  escadres  de  chaque  puissance  ayant  a  prendre  la 
station  et  devant  etre  employees  aux  convois  qu'exigent  son  commerce 
et  sa  navigation,  conformement  a  la  nature  et  a  la  qualite  du  trafic 
de  chaque  nation. 

Article  V 

Pour  prevenir  tous  les  inconveniens  qui  peuvent  provenir  de  la 
mauvaise  foi  de  ceux  qui  se  servent  du  pavilion  d'une  nation  sans  lui 
appartenir,  on  convient  d'etablir  pour  regie  inviolable,  qu'un  batiment 
quelconque,  pour  etre  regarde  comme  propriete  du  pays,  dont  il  porte 
le  pavilion,  doit  avoir  a  son  bord,  le  capitaine  du  vaisseau  et  la  moitie 
de  I'equipage,  des  gens  du  pays,  les  papiers  et  passeports  en  bonne 
et  due  forme ;  mais  tout  batiment  qui  n'observera  pas  cette  regie  et  qui 
contreviendra  aux  ordonnances  publiees  a  cet  effet,  et  imprimees  a  la 
suite  de  la  presente  convention,  perdra  tous  les  droits  a  la  protection 
des  puissances  contractants,  et  le  gouvernement  auquel  il  appartien- 
dra,  supportera  seul  les  pertes,  dommages  et  desagremens  qui  en  re- 
sulteront. 

Article  VI 

Si  cependant  il  arrivoit  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  I'une  des 
puissances  se  trouvassent  dans  un  parage  ou  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  la  meme  nation  ne  fussent  pas  stationnes,  et  ou  ils  ne  pourroient 
pas  avoir  recours  a  leurs  propres  convois,  alors  le  commandant  des 
vaisseaux  de  guerre  de  I'autre  puissance,  s'il  en  est  requis,  doit,  de 
bonne  foi  et  sincerement,  leur  preter  les  secours,  dont  ils  pourroient 
avoir  besoin,  et  en  tel  cas,  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  fregates  de  I'une 
des  puissances  serviront  de  soutien  et  d'appui  aux  vaisseaux  mer- 
chands  de  I'autre ;  bien  entendu  cependant,  que  les  reclamans  n'auroient 
fait  aucun  commerce  illicite  ni  contraire  aux  principes  de  la  neutralite. 

Article  VII 

Cette  convention  n'aura  point  d'effet  retroactif,  et  par  consequent 
on  ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  differends  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a 
moins  qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violence  continues,  tendans  a 
fonder  un  sisteme  oppressif  pour  toutes  les  nations  neutres  de  I'Europe 
en  general. 

Article  VIII 

S'il  arrivoir.  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs  des  deux  puis- 
sances et  malgre  I'observation  de  la  neutralite  la  plus  parfaite  de  leur 
part,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Suede  ou 
de  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  fussent  insultes,  pilles 
ou  pris  par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  de  I'une  ou  I'autre 
des  puissances  en  guerre,  alors  le  ministre  de  la  partie  lezee  aupres 
du  gouvernement  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  auront 


676  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

commis  de  tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representations,  reclamera  le  vais- 
seau  marchand  enleve  et  insistera  sur  les  dedommagemens  convenables, 
en  ne  pendant  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation  de  Tinsulte  faite  au  pavilion. 
Le  ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante  se  joindra  a  lui  et  appuyera 
ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus  energique  et  la  plus  efficace,  et  ainsi 
il  sera  agi  d'un  commun  et  parfait  accord.  Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de 
rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  ou  si  Ton  remettoit  de  la  rendre  d'un 
terns  a  I'autre,  alors  leurs  Majestes  useront  de  represailles  contre  la 
puissance  qui  la  leur  refuseroit,  et  elles  se  concerteront  incessamment 
sur  la  maniere  la  plus  efificace  d'effectuer  ces  justes  represailles. 

Article  IX 

S'il  arrivoit  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  puissances,  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  on  haine  de  la  presente  convention,  ou 
pour  quelque  cause  qui  y  auroit  rapport,  fut  inquietee,  molestee  ou  at- 
taquee,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu  que  les  deux  puissances  feront  cause 
commune  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement  et  pour  travailler  et  agir 
de  concert  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant  pour 
I'insulte  faite  a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs  sujets. 

Article  X 

Les  principes  et  les  mesures  adoptes  par  le  present  acte  seront  egale- 
ment applicables  a  toutes  les  guerres  maritimes  par  lesquelles  I'Europe 
auroit  le  malheur  d'etre  troublee.  Ces  stipulations  seront  en  conse- 
quence regardees  comme  permanentes  et  serviront  de  regie  aux  puis- 
sances contractantes  en  matiere  de  commerce  et  de  navigation,  et  toutes 
les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier  les  droits  des  nations  neutres. 

Article  XI 

Le  but  et  Tobjet  principal  de  cette  convention  etant  d'assurer  la 
liberte  generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de 
Suede  et  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  conviennent  et 
s'engagent  d'avance  a  consentir,  que  d'autres  puissances  egalement 
neutres  y  accedent,  et  qu'en  adoptant  les  principes,  elles  en  partagent 
les  obligations  ainsi  que  les  avantages. 

Article  XII 

Afin  que  les  puissances  en  guerre  ne  puissent  pretendre  cause  d'igno- 
rance  des  arrangemens  pris  entre  leurs  dites  Majestes,  elles  convien- 
nent, de  porter  a  la  connoissance  des  parties  belligerantes  les  mesures 
qu'elles  ont  contractees  entre  elles,  d'autant  moins  hostiles,  qu'elles 
ne  sont  au  detriment  d'aucun  autre  pays ;  mais  qu'elles  tendent  unique- 
ment  a  la  surete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  leurs  sujets  res- 
pectifs. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  677 


Article  XIII 


La  presente  convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  parties  contrac- 
tantes  et  les  ratifications  echangees  en  bonne  et  due  forme  dans  I'es- 
pace  de  six  semaines  ou  plutot,  si  faire  se  peur,  a  compter  du  jour  de 
la  signature. 

En  foi  de  quoi,  nous  soussignes,  en  vertu  de  nos  pleinpouvoirs 
I'avons  signee  et  y  avons  appose  le  cachet  de  nos  armes. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  quatre/seize  decembre  mille  huit  cent. 

(L.  S.)   Court    Stedingk 

(L.  S.)    COMTE    DE    ROSTOPSIN 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Denmark  and  Norway  for  the  Re- 
establishment  of  an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  16,  1800^ 

Au  nom  de  la  tres-sainte  et  indivisible  Trinite. 

La  liberte  de  la  navigation  et  la  siirete  du  commerce  des  puissances 
neutres  ayant  ete  compromises,  et  les  principes  du  droit  des  nations 
meconnus  dans  la  presente  guerre  maritime,  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de 
toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege 
guides  par  leur  amour  pour  la  justice  et  par  une  egale  sollicitude  pour 
tout  ce  qui  pent  concourir  a  la  prosperite  public  dans  leurs  etats,  ont 
juge  convenable  de  donner  une  nouvelle  sanction  aux  principes  de 
neutralite,  qui  indestructibles  dans  leur  essence,  ne  sollicitent  que  le 
concours  des  gouvernemens  interesses  a  leur  maintien  pour  les  faire 
respecter.  Dans  cette  vue  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  a  manifeste,  par  la 
declaration  du  15  aout  aux  cours  du  Nord,  qu'un  meme  interet  engage 
a  des  mesures  uniformes  dans  de  pareilles  circonstances,  combien  il  lui 
tenait  a  coeur  de  retablir  dans  son  inviolabilite  le  droit  commun  a  tous 
les  peuples,  de  naviguer  et  commercer  librement  et  independamment 
des  interets  momentanes  des  parties  belligerantes.  Sa  Majeste  danoise 
partageoit  les  voeux  et  les  sentimens  de  son  auguste  allie,  et  une  heu- 
reuse  analogic  d'interets  en  cimentant  leur  confiance  reciproque,  a 
determine  la  resolution  de  retablir  le  systeme  de  la  neutralite  armee, 
qui  avoit  ete  suivie  avec  tant  de  succes  pendant  la  derniere  guerre 
d'Amerique,  en  renouvellant  ses  maximes  bienfaisantes  dans  une  nou- 
velle convention  adaptee  aux  circonstances  actuelles. 

Pour  cet  efTet  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa 
Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege  ont  nomme  pour  leurs 
plenipotentiaires,  savoir:  Sa  Maj.  imperiale,  le  sieur  comte  Theodore 
de  Rostopsin,  son  conseiller  prive  actuel,  membre  de  son  conseil, 
principal  ministre  du  college  des  afifaires  etrangeres,  directeur-general 


^Martens,  Rcciieil,  2(1  ed.,  vol.  7,  p.  182. 


678  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

des  postes  de  Tempire,  grand-chancelier  et  grand-croix  de  I'ordre 
souverain  de  St.  Jean  de  Jerusalem,  chevalier  des  ordres  de  St.  Andre, 
de  St.  Alexandre-Nevsky  et  de  St.  Anne  de  la  premiere  classe,  de  ceux 
de  St.  Lazare,  de  I'Annonciade,  de  St.  Maurice  et  Lazare,  de  St.  Fer- 
dinand et  de  St.  Hubert;  et  Sa  Majeste  danoise,  le  sieur  Niels  de 
Rosenkrantz,  son  Envoye-extraordinaire  et  ministre  plenipotentiaire 
aupres  de  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  son  chambellan 
et  aide  de  camp  general ;  lesquels  apres  I'echange  de  leurs  pleinpou- 
voirs  respectifs  sont  convenus  des  articles  suivans : 

Article  I 

Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de 
Danemarck  et  de  Norvege  declarent,  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus 
rigoureuse  execution  des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  con- 
trebande  de  leurs  sujets  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  puissances  deja  en 
guerre  ou  qui  pourroient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  malentendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et 
Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege  declarent,  qu'elles  ne 
reconnoissent  pour  telles  que  les  objets  suivans,  savoir:  canons,  mor- 
tiers,  armes  a  feu,  pistolets,  bombes,  grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils, 
pierres  a  feu,  meches,  poudre,  salpetre,  soufre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees, 
ceinturons,  gibernes,  selles  et  brides,  en  exceptant  toutefois  la  quantite 
qui  peut  etre  necessaire  pour  la  defense  du  vaisseau  et  de  ceux,  qui  en 
composent  I'equipage ;  et  tous  les  autres  articles  quelconques,  non  de- 
signes  ici,  ne  seront  pas  reputes  munitions  de  guerre  et  navales,  ni 
sujets  a  confiscation,  et  par  consequent  passeront  librement  sans  etre 
assujettis  a  la  moindre  difficulte.  II  est  aussi  convenu  que  le  present 
article  ne  portera  aucun  prejudice  aux  stipulations  particulieres  des 
traites  anterieurs  avec  les  parties  belligerantes,  par  lesquelles  des  objets 
de  pareil  genre  seroient  reserves,  prohibes  ou  permis. 

Article  III 

Tout  ce  qui  peut  etre  objet  de  contrebande  etant  ainsi  determine  et 
exclu  du  commerce  des  nations  neutres,  d'apres  le  dispositif  de  I'article 
precedent,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste 
le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege  entendent  et  veulent  que  tout  autre 
trafic  soit  et  reste  parfaitement  libre ;  leurs  Majestes  pour  mettre  sous 
une  sauve-garde  suffisante  les  principes  generaux  du  droit  naturel,  dont 
la  liberte  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  de  meme  que  les  droits  des 
peuples  neutres  sont  une  consequence  directe,  ont  resolu  de  ne  les  point 
laisser  plus  longtems  dependre  d'une  interpretation  arbitraire,  suggeree 
par  des  interets  isoles  et  momentanes.  Dans  cette  vue  elles  sont  con- 
venues  : 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  679 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  naviguer  librement  de  port  en  port  et 
sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  dites  puissances  en 
guerre  soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  des  mar- 
chandises  de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu'a  celui  ou  il  y  a,  par  la  disposition  de  la 
puissance  qui  Tattaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer,  et  que  tout  batiment  naviguant 
vers  un  port  bloque  ne  pourra  etre  regarde  d'avoir  contrevenu  a  la 
presente  convention,  que  lorsqu'apres  avoit  ete  averti  par  le  comman- 
dant du  blocus  de  I'etat  du  port,  il  tachera  d'y  penetrer  en  employant  la 
force  ou  la  ruse. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  que  sur  de 
justes  causes  et  faits  evidents,  qu'ils  soient  juges  sans  retard,  que  la 
procedure  soit  toujours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque 
fois,  outre  le  dedommagement  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux  qui  ont  fait  des 
pertes  sans  avoir  ete  en  contrevention,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction 
complete  pour  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion  de  leurs  Majestes. 

5)  Que  la  declaration  de  I'officier  commandant  le  vaisseau  ou  les 
vaisseaux  de  la  marine  imperiale  ou  royale  qui  accompagneront  le  con- 
voi  d'un  ou  de  plusieurs  batimens  marchands,  que  son  convoi  n'a  a  bord 
aucune  marchandise  de  contrebande,  doit  suffire  pour  qu'il  n'y  ait  lieu 
a  aucune  visite  sur  son  bord  ni  a  celui  des  batimens  de  son  convoi. 

Pour  assurer  d'autant  mieux  a  ces  principes  le  respect  du  a  des 
stipulations  dictees  par  le  desir  desinteresse  de  maintenir  les  droits 
imprescriptibles  des  nations  neutres,  et  donner  une  nouvelle  preuve  de 
leur  loyaute  et  de  leur  amour  pour  la  justice,  les  hautes  parties  con- 
tractantes  prennent  ici  I'engagement  le  plus  formel,  de  renouveller  les 
defenses  les  plus  severes  a  leurs  capitaines,  soit  de  haut  bord,  soit  de 
la  marine  marchande.  de  charger,  tenir  ou  receler  a  leurs  bords  aucun 
des  objets,  qui,  aux  termes  de  la  presente  convention  pourroient  etre 
reputes  de  contrebande ;  et  de  tenir  respectivement  la  main  a  I'execu 
tion  des  ordres  qu'elles  feront  publier  dans  leurs  amirautes  et  partout 
ou  besoin  sera ;  a  I'effet  de  quoi  I'ordonnance  qui  renouvellera  cette 
defense  sous  les  peines  les  plus  graves,  sera  imprimee  a  la  suite  du 
present  acte,  pour  qu'il  n'en  puisse  etre  pretendu  cause  d'ignorance. 

Article  IV 

Pour  proteger  le  commerce  commun  de  leurs  sujets  sur  le  fonde- 
ment  des  principes  ci-dessus  etablis,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes 
les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege  ont  juge 
a  propos  d'equiper  separement  un  nombre  de  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et 
de  f  regates  proportionne  a  ce  but ;  les  escadres  de  chaque  puissance 
ayant  a  prendre  la  station  et  devant  etre  employees  aux  convois  qu'exi- 
gent  son  commerce  et  sa  navigation,  conformement  a  la  nature  et  a  la 
qualite  du  trafic  de  chaque  nation. 


680  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  V 

Pour  prevenir  tous  les  inconveniens  qui  peuvent  provenir  de  la 
mauvaise  foi  de  ceux  qui  se  servent  du  pavilion  d'une  nation  sans  lui 
appartenir,  on  convient  d'etablir  pour  regie  inviolable,  qu'un  batiment 
quelconque,  pour  etre  regarde  comme  propriete  du  pays  dont  il  porte  le 
pavilion,  doit  avoir  a  son  bord  le  capitaine  du  vaisseau  et  la  moitie  de 
I'equipage  des  gens  du  pays,  les  papiers  et  passeports  en  bonne  et  due 
forme.  Mais  tout  batiment  qui  n'observera  pas  cette  regie,  et  qui  con- 
treviendra  aux  ordonnances  publiees  a  cet  effet  et  imprimees  a  la  suite 
de  la  presente  convention,  perdra  tous  les  droits  a  la  protection  des 
puissances  contractantes,  et  le  gouvernement  auquel  il  appartiendra, 
supportera  seul  les  pertes,  dommages  et  desagremens  qui  en  resul- 
teront. 

Article  VI 

Si  cependant  il  arrivoit  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  I'une  des 
puissances  se  trouvassent  dans  un  parage  ou  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  la  meme  nation  ne  fussent  pas  stationnes  et  ou  ils  ne  pourroient 
pas  avoir  recours  a  leurs  propres  convois,  alors  le  commandant  des 
vaisseaux  de  guerre  de  I'autre  puissance,  s'il  en  est  requis,  doit  de 
bonne  foi  et  sincerement  leur  preter  les  secours  dont  ils  pourroient 
avoir  besoin,  et  en  tel  cas,  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  et  fregates  de  I'une 
des  puissances  serviront  de  soutien  et  d'appui  aux  vaisseaux  mar- 
chands de  I'autre.  bien  entendu  cependant,  que  les  reclamans  n'auroient 
fait  aucun  commerce  illicite ;  ni  contraire  aux  principes  de  la  neutralite. 

Article  VII 

Cette  convention  n'aura  point  d'effet  retroactif  et  par  consequent  on 
ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  differends  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a 
moins  qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violence  continues,  tendans  a 
fonder  un  sisteme  oppressif  pour  toutes  les  nations  neutres  de  1' Europe 
en  general. 

Article  VIII 

S'il  arrivoit  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs  des  deux  puis- 
sances, et  malgre  I'observation  de  la  neutralite  la  plus  parfaite  de  leur 
part,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes 
les  Russies  ou  de  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege 
fussent  insultes,  pilles  ou  pris  par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs 
de  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  puissances  en  guerre,  alors  le  ministre  de  la 
partie  lezee  aupres  du  gouvernement  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou 
armateurs  auront  commis  de  tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representations, 
reclamera  le  vaisseau  marchand  enleve,  et  insistera  sur  les  dedommage- 
mens  convenables,  en  ne  perdent  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation  de  I'in- 
sulte  faite  au  pavilion.  Le  ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante  se 
joindra  a  lui  et  appuyera  ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus  energique 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  681 

et  la  plus  efficace,  et  ainsi  il  sera  agi  d'un  conimun  et  parfait  accord. 
Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de  rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes,  ou  si  Ton  remet- 
toit  de  la  rendre  d'un  terns  a  I'autre,  alors  leurs  Majestes  useront  de  re- 
presailles  centre  la  puissance  qui  la  leur  refuserait,  et  elles  se  concerte- 
ront  incessamment  sur  la  nianiere  la  plus  efficace  d'effectuer  ces  justes 
represailles. 

Article  IX 

S'il  arrivait  que  Tune  ou  I'autre  des  deux  puissances  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  de  la  presente  convention,  ou 
pour  quelque  cause  qui  y  auroit  rapport,  fut  inquietee,  molestee  ou 
attaquee,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu,  que  les  deux  puissances  feront 
cause  commune  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement  et  pour  travailler  et 
agir  de  concert  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant 
pour  I'insulte  faite  a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs 
sujets. 

Article  X 

Les  principes  et  les  mesures  adoptees  par  le  present  acte  seront 
egalement  applicables  a  toutes  les  guerres  maritimes  par  lesquelles 
I'Europe  aurait  le  malheur  d'etre  troublee.  Ces  stipulations  seront  en 
consequence  regardees  comme  permanentes  et  serviront  de  regie  aux 
puissances  contractantes  en  matiere  de  commerce  et  de  navigation,  et 
toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agira  d'apprecier  les  droits  des  nations  neutres. 

Article  XI 

Le  but  et  I'objet  principal  de  cette  convention  etant  d'assurer  la 
liberte  generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale 
de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Danemarck  et  de  Norvege, 
conviennent  et  s'engagent  d'avance  a  consentir  que  d'autres  puissances 
egalement  neutres  y  accedent.  et  qu'en  en  adoptant  les  principes,  elles 
en  partagent  les  obligations  ainsi  que  les  avantages. 

Article  XII 

Afin  que  les  puissances  en  guerre  ne  puissent  pretendre  cause  d'igno- 
rance  des  arrangemens  pris  entre  leurs  dites  Majestes,  elles  convien- 
nent de  porter  a  la  connoissance  des  parties  belligerantes  les  mesures 
qu'elles  ont  contractees  entre  elles,  d'autant  moins  hostiles  qu'elles  ne 
sont  au  detriment  d'aucun  autre  pays,  mais  tendent  uniquement  a  la 
surete  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  leurs  sujets  respectifs. 

Article  XIII 

La  presente  convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  parties  contrac- 
tantes et  les  ratifications  echangees  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  dans  I'espace 
de  six  semaines,  ou  plutot,  si  faire  se  peut,  a  compter  du  jour  de  la 
signature. 


682  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

En  foi  de  quoi,  nous  soussignes,  en  vertu  de  nos  pleinpouvoirs, 
I'avons  signee  et  y  avons  appose  la  cachet  de  nous  armes. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  4/16  dec.  mille  huit  cent. 

(L.  S.)   Niels  de  Rosenkrantz 
(L.  S.)   Comte  de  Rostopsin 

Articles  Separes  et  Secrets^ 

Article  1 

Pour  donner  au  systeme  de  la  neutralite  maritime  armee  tout  le  poids 
et  toute  la  solidite  dont  il  est  susceptible,  Leurs  Majestes  le  Roi  de 
Danemark  et  de  Norvege  et  TEmpereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  convien- 
nent  de  mettre  en  mer  au  printemps,  et  aussitot  que  la  saison  pourra  le 
permettre,  un  nombre  considerable  de  leurs  vaisseaux  de  guerre  pour 
les  employer  partout  ou  le  besoin  I'exigera,  et  de  les  entretenir  dans  le 
meme  etat  aussi  longtemps  que  les  circonstances  qui  ont  fait  naitre  la 
necessite  de  cet  armement,  resteront  les  memes.  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale 
fera  pour  cet  effet  equiper  quinze  vaisseaux  de  ligne  et  cinq  f regates,  et 
Sa  Majeste  Danoise  huit  vaisseaux  de  ligne  et  deux  fregates. 

Article  2 

Leurs  Majestes  s'engagent  cependant  reciproquement  a  prendre  les 
mesures  necessaires  pour  pouvoir  augmenter  cette  force,  si  les  cir- 
constances I'exigent,  ou  qu'il  y  ait  une  force  ennemie  plus  formidable 
a  combattre  ou  a  redouter. 

Article  3 

Leurs  Majestes  regardant  la  Baltique  constamment  comme  une  mer 
fermee,  useront  de  tons  les  moyens  en  leur  pouvoir  pour  en  garantir  la 
navigation  et  les  cotes  de  toute  hostilite,  violence  et  vexation  quel- 
conques. 

Article  4 

Si  les  circonstances  rendaient  necessaire  que  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  Sa  Majeste  Imperiale  hivernassent  dans  les  ports  du  Danemark  ou 
de  la  Norvege,  Sa  Majeste  Danoise  prendrait  les  arrangements  neces- 
saires pour  que  ces  vaisseaux  et  leurs  equipages  y  fussent  soignes 
comme  les  siens  propres,  en  observant  ce  qui  sera  stipule  a  cet  egard 
dans  I'article  6. 

Article  5 

Si  la  jonction  des  escadres  est  trouves  necessaire,  ou  si  quelques 
vaisseaux  appartenant  aux  deux  souverains  se  trouvent  ensemble,  celui 
des   commandants   qui   aura   le   grade   sur   I'autre   ou   bien,    a    grades 


'^Danske  Tractater  efter  i8oo  (Copenhagen,  1871),  vol.  1,  p.  10. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  683 

egaux,  celui  qui  sera  le  plus  ancien,  prendra  le  commandement  sur  les 
vaisseaux  reunis. 

Article  6 

Les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  des  hautes  Puissances  contractantes  seront, 
a  leur  sortie,  approvisionnes  au  moins  pour  cinq  mois. 

Si  au  bout  de  ce  temps  les  vaisseaux  d'une  de  ces  puissances  se  trou- 
vaient  dans  les  ports  de  I'autre,  on  leur  y  fournira,  mais  a  leurs  frais, 
les  provisions  dont  ils  auront  besoin. 

Ces  articles  separes  et  secrets  seront  censes  et  regardes  comme  faisant 
partie  de  la  convention  meme  et  seront  signes  et  ratifies  de  la  meme 
maniere. 


Convention  between  Russia  and  Prussia  for  the  Reestablishment  of 
an  Armed  Neutrality,  December  18,  1800^ 

Au  nom  de  la  tres-sainte  et  indivisible  Trinite. 

La  liberte  de  la  navigation  et  la  siirete  du  commerce  des  puissances 
neutres  ayant  ete  compromises  et  les  principes  du  droit  des  nations 
meconnus  dans  la  presente  guerre  maritime,  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de 
toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi  de  Prusse,  guides  par  leur 
amour  pour  la  justice  et  par  une  egale  sollicitude  pour  tout  ce  qui  peut 
concourir  a  la  prosperite  publique  dans  leurs  etats,  ont  juge  convenable 
de  donner  une  nouvelle  sanction  aux  principes  de  neutralite,  qui  in- 
destructibles  dans  leur  essence,  ne  sollicitent  que  le  concours  des  gou- 
vernemens  interesses  a  leur  maintien  pour  les  faire  respecter.  Dans 
cette  vue  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  a  manifeste  par  la  declaration  du  15. 
aoiit  aux  cours  du  Nord,  qu'un  meme  interet  engage  a  des  mesures 
uniformes  dans  de  pareilles  circonstances  combien  il  lui  tenait  a  coeur 
de  retablir  dans  son  inviolabilite  le  droit  commun  a  tous  les  peuples 
de  naviguer  et  commercer  librement  et  independamment  des  interets 
momentanes  des  parties  belligerantes.  Sa  Majeste  prussienne  par- 
tageoit  les  voeux  et  les  sentimens  de  son  auguste  allie  et  une  heureuse 
analogic  d'interets  en  cimentant  leur  confiance  reciproque,  a  determine 
la  resolution  de  retablir  le  systeme  de  la  neutralite  armee,  qui  avoit  ete 
suivie  avec  tant  de  succes  pendant  la  derniere  guerre  d'Amerique,  en 
renouvellant  ses  maximes  bienfaisantes  dans  une  nouvelle  convention 
adaptee  aux  circonstances  actuelles. 

Pour  cet  effet  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa 
Majeste  le  roi  de  Prusse  ont  nomme  pour  leurs  plenipotentiaires,  sa- 


iMartens,  Recueil,  2d  ed..  vol.  7,  p.  189. 


684  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

voir:  Sa  Majeste  imperiale,  le  sieur  comte  Theodor  de  Rostopsin,  son 
conseiller  prive  actuel,  membre  de  son  conseil,  principal  ministre  du 
college  des  affaires  etrangeres,  directeur-general  des  postes  de  I'em- 
pire,  grand-chancelier  et  grand-croix  de  I'ordre  souverain  de  St.  Jean 
de  Jerusalem,  chevalier  des  ordres  de  St.  Andre,  de  St.  Alexandre- 
Nevsky  et  de  St.  Anne  de  la  premiere  classe,  de  ceux  de  St.  Lazare,  de 
I'Annonciade,  de  St.  Maurice  et  Lazare,  de  St.  Ferdinand  et  de  St. 
Hubert;  et  Sa  Majeste  prussienne,  le  sieur  comte  Spiridon  de  Lusi, 
lieutenant-general  d'infanterie  de  ses  armees,  son  Envoye-extraordi- 
naire  et  ministre  plenipotentiaire  aupres  de  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de 
toutes  les  Russies,  chevalier  de  I'ordre  de  I'aigle  rouge  et  de  I'ordre 
pour  le  merite ;  lesquels  apres  I'echange  de  leurs  pleinpouvoirs  sont 
convenus  des  articles  suivans : 

Article  I 

Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  le  roi 
de  Prusse  declarent,  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse  execu- 
tion des  defenses  portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de  leurs 
sujets  avec  qui  que  ce  soit  des  puissances  deja  en  guerre  ou  qui  pour- 
roient  y  entrer  dans  la  suite. 

Article  II 

Pour  eviter  toute  equivoque  et  tout  malentendu  sur  ce  qui  doit  etre 
qualifie  de  contrebande,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies,  et 
Sa  Majeste  prussienne  declarent  qu'elles  ne  reconnaissent  pour  telles 
que  les  objets  suivans,  savoir :  canons,  mortiers,  amies  a  feu,  pistolets, 
bombes,  grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres  a  feu,  meches,  poudre, 
salpetre,  soufre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceinturons,  gibernes,  selles  et 
brides,  en  exceptant  toute  fois  la  quantite  qui  pent  etre  necessaire  pour 
la  defense  du  vaisseaux  et  de  ceux  qui  en  composent  I'equipage ;  et  tous 
les  autres  articles  quelconques,  non  designes  ici,  ne  seront  pas  reputes 
munitions  de  guerre  et  navales,  ni  sujets  a  confiscation  et  par  conse- 
quent passeront  librement  san  etre  assujettis  a  la  moindre  difficulte. 
II  est  aussi  convenu  que  le  present  article  ne  portera  aucun  prejudice 
aux  stipulations  particulieres  des  traites  anterieurs  avec  les  parties  bel- 
ligerantes  par  lesquelles  des  objets  de  pareil  genre  seroient  reserves, 
prohibes  ou  permis. 

Akticle  III 

Tout  ce  qui  peut  etre  objet  de  contrebande  etant  ainsi  determine  et 
exclu  du  commerce  des  nations  neutres  d'apres  le  dispositif  de  I'article 
precedent,  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste 
prussienne  entendent  et  veulent  que  tout  autre  trafic  soit  et  reste  par- 
faitement  libres ;  leurs  Majestes  pour  mettre  sous  une  sauve-garde  suf- 
fisante  les  principes  generaux  du  droit  naturel,  dont  la  liberte  du  com- 
merce et  de  la  navigation,  de  meme  que  les  droits  des  peuples  neutres, 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  685 

sont  une  consequence  directe,  ont  resolu  de  ne  les  point  laisser  plus 
long  terns  dependre  d'une  interpretation  arbitraire,  suggeree  par  des 
interets  isoles  et  momentanes.     Dans  cette  vue  elles  sont  convenues : 

1)  Que  tout  vaisseau  peut  naviguer  librement  de  port  en  port  et  sur 
les  cotes  de  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  appartenans  aux  sujets  des  puissances  en  guerre 
soient  libres  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres,  a  I'exception  des  marchandises 
de  contrebande. 

3)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu  a  celui  ou  il  y  a,  par  la  disposition  de  la 
puissance  qui  I'attaque  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  et  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer,  et  que  tout  batiment  naviguant 
vers  un  port  bloque  ne  pourra  etre  regarde  d'avoir  contrevenu  a  la 
present  convention,  que  lors  qu'apres  avoir  ete  averti  par  le  comman- 
dant du  blocus  de  I'etat  du  port,  il  tachera  d'y  penetrer  en  employant 
la  force  de  la  ruse. 

4)  Que  les  vaisseaux  neutres  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes  que  sur  de 
justes  causes  et  faits  evidents,  qu'ils  soient  juges  sans  retard,  que  la 
procedure  soit  toujours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale,  et  que  chaque 
fois,  outre  le  dedommagement  qu'on  accorde  a  ceux  qui  ont  fait  des 
pertes  sans  avoir  ete  en  contrevention,  il  soit  rendu  une  satisfaction 
complete  pour  I'insulte  faite  au  pavilion  de  leurs  Majestes. 

5)  Que  la  declaration  de  I'officier  commandant  le  vaisseau  ou  les 
vaisseaux  de  la  marine  imperiale  ou  royale  qui  accompagneront  le  con- 
voi  d'un  ou  de  plusieurs  batimens  marchands,  que  son  convoi  n'a  a 
bord  aucune  marchandise  de  contrebande,  doit  suffire  pour  qu'il  n'y  ait 
lieu  a  aucune  visite  sur  son  bord  ni  a  celui  des  batimens  de  son  convoi. 

Pour  assurer  d'autant  mieux  a  ces  principes  le  respect  du  a  des 
stipulations  dictees  par  le  desir  desinteresse  de  maintenir  les  droits 
imprescriptibles  des  nations  neutres,  et  donner  une  nouvelle  preuve  de 
leur  loyaute  et  de  leur  amour  pour  la  justice,  les  hautes  parties  con- 
tractantes  prennent  ici  I'engagement  le  plus  formel  de  renouveller  les 
defenses  les  plus  severes  a  leurs  capitaines,  soit  se  haut-bord,  soit  de 
la  marine  marchande  de  charger,  tenir  ou  receler  a  leurs  bords  aucun 
des  objets,  qui  aux  termes  de  la  presente  convention  pourroient  etre 
reputes  de  contrebande,  et  de  tenir  respectivement  le  main  a  I'execu- 
tion  des  ordres  qu'elles  feront  publier  dans  leurs  amirautes  et  partout 
ou  besoin  sera,  a  I'efifet  de  quoi  I'ordonnance,  qui  renouvellera  cette 
defense  sous  les  peines  les  plus  graves,  sera  imprimee  a  la  suite  du 
present  acte  pour  qu'il  n'en  puisse  etre  pretendu  cause  d'ignorance. 

Article  IV^ 

En  reciprocity  de  cette  accession  Sa  Majeste  I'empereur  de  toutes 
les  Russies  fera  jouir  le  commerce  et  la  navigation  des  sujets  prus- 


^Cet   article  est   substitue  aux   art.    IV.,   V.   et   VI.   des   conventions   avec   la 
Suede  et  le  Danemarck,  mais  on  retrouvera  I'art.  V.  dans  I'article  separe. 


686  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

siens  de  la  protection  de  ses  flottes,  en  ordonnant  a  tous  les  chefs  de 
ses  escadres  de  proteger  et  defendre  contre  toute  insulte  et  molestation 
les  navires  marchands  prussiens  qui  se  trouveront  sur  leur  route, 
comme  ceux  d'une  puissance  amie,  alliee  et  stricte  observatrice  de  la 
neutralite ;  bien  entendu  cependant  que  les  susdits  navires  ne  seront 
employes  a  aucun  commerce  illicite  ni  contraire  aux  regies  de  la  neu- 
tralite la  plus  exacte. 

La  meme  protection  et  la  meme  assistance  sera  accordes  au  pavilion 
prussien  de  la  part  des  vaisseaux  de  guerre  danois  et  suedois,  con- 
formement  aux  principes  de  la  neutralite  armee,  et  Sa  Majeste  I'em- 
pereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  s'engage  a  concourir,  s'il  est  necessaire, 
aux  arrangemens  qui  doivent  etre  stipules  pour  cet  effet  dans  les  con- 
ventions separees  a  conclure  en  suite  du  present  acte  entre  les  cours 
de  Berlin,  de  Copenhague  et  de  Stockholm. 

Article  V 

Cette  convention  n'aura  point  d'effet  retroactif,  et  par  consequent 
on  ne  prendra  aucune  part  aux  differends  nes  avant  sa  conclusion,  a 
moins  qu'il  ne  soit  question  d'actes  de  violence  continues,  tendans  a 
former  un  systeme  oppressif  pour  toutes  les  nations  neutres  de 
I'Europe  en  general. 

Article  VI 

S'il  arrivoit  malgre  tous  les  soins  les  plus  attentifs  des  deux  puis- 
sances et  malgre  I'observation  de  la  neutralite  la  plus  parfaite  de  leur 
part,  que  les  vaisseaux  marchands  de  Sa  Majeste  imperiale  de  toutes 
les  Russies,  ou  de  Sa  Majeste  prussienne  fussent  insultes,  pilles  ou  pris 
par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  de  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  puis- 
sances en  guerre,  alors  le  ministre  de  la  partie  lezee  aupres  du  gouver- 
nement  dont  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  ou  armateurs  auront  commis  de 
tels  attentats,  y  fera  des  representations,  reclamera  le  vaisseau  mar- 
chand  enleve  et  insistera  sur  les  dedommagemens  convenables,  en  ne 
perdant  jamais  de  vue  la  reparation  de  I'insulte  faite  su  pavilion.  Le 
ministre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante  se  joindra  a  lui,  et  appuyera 
ses  plaintes  de  la  maniere  la  plus  energique  et  la  plus  efficace,  et  ainsi 
il  sera  agi  d'un  commun  et  parfait  accord.  Que  si  Ton  refusoit  de 
rendre  justice  sur  ces  plaintes  ou  si  Ton  remettoit  de  la  rendre  d'un 
tems  a  I'autre,  alors  leurs  Majestes  useront  de  represailles  contre  la 
puissance  qui  la  leur  refuserait,  et  elles  se  concerteront  incessament 
sur  la  maniere  la  plus  efficace  d'effecteur  ces  justes  represailles. 

Article  VII 

S'il  arrivait  que  I'une  ou  I'autre  des  deux  puissances,  ou  toutes  les 
deux  ensemble,  a  I'occasion  ou  en  haine  de  la  presente  convention,  ou 
pour  quelque  cause  qui  y  auroit  rapport,  fut  inquietee,  molestee  ou 
attaquee,  il  a  ete  egalement  convenu,  que  les  deux  puissances  feront 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  687 

cause  commune  pour  se  defendre  reciproquement  et  pour  travailler 
et  agir  de  concert  a  se  procurer  une  pleine  et  entiere  satisfaction,  tant 
pour  I'insulte  faite  a  leur  pavilion,  que  pour  les  pertes  causees  a  leurs 
sujets. 

Article  VIII 

Les  principes  et  les  mesures  adoptees  par  le  present  acte,  seront 
egalement  applicables  a  toutes  les  guerres  maritimes  par  lesquelles 
I'Europe  auroit  le  malheur  d'etre  troublee.  Ces  stipulations  seront 
en  consequence  regardees  comme  permanentes  et  serviront  de  regie 
aux  puissances  contractantes  en  matiere  de  commerce  et  de  navigation, 
et  toutes  les  fois  qu'il  s'agire  d'apprecier  les  droits  des  nations  neutres. 

Article  IX 

Le  but  et  I'objet  principal  de  cette  convention  etant  d'assurer  la 
liberie  generale  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation,  Sa  Majeste  impe- 
riale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  Sa  Majeste  prussienne  conviennent  et 
s'engagent  d'avance  a  consentir,  que  d'autres  puissances  egalement  neu- 
tres y  accedent,  et  qu'en  adoptant  les  principes,  elles  en  partagent  les 
obligations  ainsi  que  les  avantages. 

Article  X 

Afin  que  les  puissances  en  guerre  ne  puissent  pretendre  cause  d'igno- 
rance  des  arrangements  pris  entre  leurs  dites  Majestes,  elles  conviennent 
de  porter  a  la  connaissance  des  parties  belligerantes  les  mesures 
qu'elles  ont  contractees  entre  elles,  d'autant  moins  hostiles,  qu'elles  ne 
sont  au  detriment  d'aucun  pays,  mais  tendent  uniquement  a  la  sijrete 
du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation  de  leurs  sujets  respectifs. 

Article  XI 

La  presente  convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  parties  contrac- 
tantes et  les  ratifications  echangees  en  bonne  et  due  forme,  dans  I'es- 
pace  de  six  semaines,  ou  plutot  si  faire  se  peut,  a  compter  du  jour  de 
la  signature. 

En  foi  de  quoi  nous  soussignes,  en  vertu  de  nos  pleinpouvoirs, 
I'avons  signee  et  y  avons  appose  le  cachet  de  nos  amies. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  6/18  dec.  mille  huit  cent. 

(L.  S.)    COMTE    DE    ROSTOPSIN 

(L.  S.)   Spiridon  Comte  de  Lusi 

Article  Supplementaire 

Pour  prevenir  tous  les  inconveniens  qui  peuvent  provenir  de  la  mau- 
vaise  foi  de  ceux  qui  se  servent  du  pavilion  d'une  nation  sans  lui  ap- 
partenir,  on  convient  d'etablir  pour  regie  inviolable,  qu'un  batiment 
quelconque,  pour  etre  regarde  comme  propriete  du  pays  dont  il  porte 


688  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

le  pavilion,  doit  avoir  a  son  bord  le  capitaine  du  vaisseau  et  la  moitie  de 
I'equipage  des  gens  du  pays,  les  papiers  et  passeports  en  bonne  et  due 
forme.  Mais  tout  batiment  qui  n'observera  pas  cette  regie  et  qui  con- 
treviendra  aux  ordonnances  publiees  a  cet  eifet  et  imprimees  a  la  suite 
de  la  presente  convention,  perdra  tous  les  droits  a  la  protection  des 
puissances  contractantes,  et  le  gouvernement  auquel  il  appartiendra, 
supportera  seul  les  pertes,  dommages  et  desagremens  qui  en  resulteront. 


Convention  betv^reen  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to  Neutral 
Trade,  June  17,  180r 

Au  Nom  de  la  Tres-Sainte  et  indivisible  Trinite. 

Le  desir  mutuel  de  S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  de 
S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume  uni  de  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  de  I'lrlande 
etant,  non  seulement  de  s'entendre  entre  Elles  sur  les  differends  qui 
ont  altere  en  dernier  lieu  la  bonne  intelligence  et  les  rapports  d'amitie 
qui  subsistaient  entre  les  deux  Etats,  mais  encore  de  prevenir  a  I'avance, 
par  des  explications  {ranches  et  precises,  a  I'egard  de  la  navigation  de 
leurs  sujets  respectifs,  le  renouvellement  de  semblables  altercations,  et 
les  troubles  qui  pourraient  en  etre  la  suite;  et  I'objet  de  la  commune 
sollicitude  de  Leurs  dites  Majestes  etant  de  parvenir  le  plutot  que  faire 
se  pourra  a  un  arrangement  equitable  de  ces  differends,  et  une  fixation 
invariable  de  leurs  principes  sur  les  droits  de  la  Neutralite,  dans  leur 
application  a  leurs  Monarchies  respectives,  afin  de  resserrer  de  plus 
en  plus  les  liens  d'amitie  et  de  bonne  correspondance  dont  Elles  recon- 
naissent  I'utilite  et  les  avantages,  Elles  ont  nomme  et  choisi  pour 
Leurs  plenipotentiaires,  savoir : 

S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  sieur  Nikita  Comte  de 
Panin  Son  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Ministre  d'Etat  au  Departement  des 
affaires  etrangeres,  chambellan  actuel,  chevalier  grand-croix  des  ordres 
de  St.  Alexandre  Newsky  et  de  St.  Anne  de  la  premiere  classe  etc., 
et  S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume  uni  de  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  de  I'lr- 
lande. Alleyne  Lord  Baron  St.  Helens,  Conseiller  prive  de  Sa  dite 
Majeste  et  Son  ambassadeur  extraordinaire  et  plenipotentiaire  pres 
S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  lesquels,  apres  s'etre  com- 
munique leurs  pleinpouvoirs  et  les  avoir  trouves  en  bonne  et  due  forme, 
sont  convenus  des  points  et  articles  suivants. 

Article  I 

II  y  aura  desormais  entre  S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et 
S.   M.   Britannique,   leurs   sujets,   Etats   et  pays   de   leur   domination, 


^F.  Martens,  Traitcs  ct  Cotn^cntions  conclus  par  la  Russie,  vol.  11,  p.  28. 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  689 

bonne  et  inalterable  amitie  et  intelligence,  et  subsisteront  comme  par 
le  passe  tons  les  rapports  politiques  de  commerce  et  autres  d'une  utilite 
commune  entre  les  sujets  respectifs  sans  qu'ils  puissent  etre  troubles 
ni  inquietes  en  maniere  quelconque. 

Article  II 

S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  Britannique  de- 
clarent  vouloir  tenir  la  main  a  la  plus  rigoureuse  execution  des  de- 
fenses portees  contre  le  commerce  de  contrebande  de  leurs  sujets  avec 
les  ennemis  de  I'une  et  de  I'autre  des  deux  Hautes  Parties  contractan- 
tes. 

Article  III 

S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  Britannique  ayant 
resolu  de  mettre  sous  une  sauvegarde  suffisante  la  liberte  du  com- 
merce et  de  la  navigation  de  Leurs  sujets,  dans  le  cas  oil  Tune  d'entre 
Elles  seroit  en  guerre,  tandis  que  I'autre  resteroit  neutre,  EUes  sont 
convenues : 

1 )  Que  les  vaisseaux  de  la  Puissance  neutre  pourront  naviguer  libre- 
ment  aux  ports  et  sur  les  cotes  des  nations  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  effets  embarques  sur  les  vaisseaux  neutres  seront  libres 
a  I'exception  de  la  contrebande  de  guerre  et  des  proprietes  ennemies, 
et  il  est  convenu  de  ne  pas  comprendre  au  nombre  des  dernieres  les 
marchandises  du  produit,  du  cru  ou  de  la  manufacture  des  pays  en 
guerre  qui  auroient  ete  acquises  par  des  sujets  de  la  Puissance  neutre 
et  seroient  transportees  pour  leur  compte,  lesquelles  marchandises  ne 
pieuvent  etre  exceptees  en  aucun  cas  de  la  franchise  accordee  au  pavil- 
ion de  la  dite  Puissance. 

3)  Que  pour  eviter  aussi  toute  equivoque  et  tout  mesentendu  sur 
ce  qui  doit  etre  qualifie  de  contrebande  de  guerre,  S.  M.  Imperiale  de 
toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  Britannique  declarent  conformement  a 
I'article  XI  du  Traite  de  commerce  conclu  entre  les  deux  couronnes 
le  10  (21)  fevrier  1797,  qu'Elles  ne  reconnaissent  pour  telle  que  les 
objets  suivans,  savoir:  canons,  mortiers,  armes  a  feu,  pistolets,  bombes, 
grenades,  boulets,  balles,  fusils,  pierres  a  feu,  meches,  poudre.  salpetre, 
soufre,  cuirasses,  piques,  epees,  ceinturons,  gibernes,  selles  et  brides, 
en  exceptant  toutefois  la  quantite  des  susdits  articles  qui  peut  'etre 
necessaire  pour  la  defense  du  vaisseau  et  de  ceux  qui  en  composent 
I'equipage,  et  tous  les  autres  articles  quelconques  non  designes  ici  ne 
seront  pas  reputes  munitions  de  guerre  et  navales  ni  sujets  a  confis- 
cation et  par  consequent  passeront  librement  sans  etre  assujettis  a  la 
moindre  difficulte,  a  moins  qu'ils  ne  puissent  etre  reputes  proprietes 
ennemies  dans  le  sens  arrete  ci-dessus. 

II  est  aussi  convenu  que  ce  qui  est  stipule  dans  le  present  Article 
ne  portera  aucun  prejudice  aux  stipulations  particulieres  de  Tune  ou 
de  I'autre  couronne  avec  d'autres  Puissances  par  lesquelles  des  objets 
de  pareil  genre  seroient  reserves,  prohibes  ou  permis. 


690  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

4)  Que  pour  determiner  ce  qui  caracterise  un  port  bloque,  on  n'ac- 
corde  cette  denomination  qu  a  celui,  ou  il-y-a  par  la  disposition  de  la 
Puissance  qui  I'attaque,  avec  des  vaisseaux  arretes  ou  suffisamment 
proches,  un  danger  evident  d'entrer. 

5)  Que  les  vaisseaux  de  la  Puissance  neutre  ne  peuvent  etre  arretes 
que  sur  de  justes  causes  et  faits  evidents,  qu'ils  soient  juges  sans  re- 
tard et  que  la  procedure  soit  toujours  uniforme,  prompte  et  legale. 

Pour  assurer  d'autant  mieux  le  respect  du.  a  ces  stipulations  dictees 
par  le  desir  sincere  de  concilier  tous  les  interets  et  donner  une  nouvelle 
preuve  de  Leur  loyaute  et  de  Leur  amour  pour  la  justice,  les  Hautes 
Parties  contractantes  prennent  ici  engagement  le  plus  formel  de  re- 
nouveller  les  defenses  les  plus  severes  a  Leurs  capitaines  soit  de  haut 
bord,  soit  de  la  marine  marchande  de  charger,  tenir  ou  receler  a  leurs 
bords  aucun  des  objets  qui,  aux  termes  de  la  presente  Convention, 
pourroient  etre  reputes  de  contrebande  et  de  tenir  respectivement  la 
main  a  I'execution  des  ordres  qu'Elles  auront  publics  dans  Leurs  ami- 
rautes  et  partout  ou  besoin  sera. 

Article  IV 

Les  deux  Hautes  Parties  contractantes  voulant  encore  prevenir  tout 
sujet  de  dissention  a  I'avenir,  en  limitant  le  droit  de  visite  des  vais- 
seaux marchands  allant  sous  convoi,  aux  seuls  cas  ou  la  Puissance 
belligerante  pourroit  essuyer  un  prejudice  reel  par  Tabus  du  pavilion 
neutre,  sont  convenues : 

1)  Que  le  droit  de  visiter  les  navires  marchands  appartenans  aux 
sujets  de  I'une  des  Puissances  contractantes  et  naviguant  sous  le  con- 
voi d'un  vaisseau  de  guerre  de  la  dite  Puissance  ne  sera  exerce  que 
par  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre  de  la  partie  belligerante  et  ne  s'etendra 
jamais  aux  armateurs,  corsaires  ou  autres  batimens  qui  n'appartien- 
nent  pas  a  la  flotte  Imperiale  ou  Royale  de  Leurs  Majestes,  mais  que 
Leurs  sujets  auroient  armes  en  guerre. 

2)  Que  les  proprietaires  de  tous  les  navires  marchands  apparte- 
nants  aux  sujets  de  I'un  des  Souverains  contractans,  qui  seront  des- 
tines a  aller  sous  convoi  d'un  vaisseau  de  guerre,  seront  tenus,  avant 
qu'ils  ne  regoivent  leurs  instructions  de  navigation,  de  produire  au 
commandant  du  vaisseau  de  convoi  leurs  passeports  et  certificats  ou 
lettres  de  mer  dans  la  forme  annexee  au  present  Traite. 

3)  Que  lorsqu'un  tel  vaisseau  de  guerre,  ayant  sous  convoi  des 
navires  marchands,  sera  rencontre  par  un  vaisseau  ou  des  vaisseaux  de 
guerre  de  I'autre  partie  contractante  qui  se  trouvera  alors  en  etat  de 
guerre,  pour  eviter  tout  desordre,  on  se  tiendra  hors  de  la  portee  du 
canon,  a  moins  que  I'etat  de  la  mer  ou  le  lieu  de  la  rencontre  ne 
necessite  un  phis  grand  rapprochement,  et  le  commandant  du  vaisseau 
de  la  Puissance  belligerante  enverra  une  chaloupe  a  bord  du  vaisseau 
de  convoi,  oil  il  sera  procede  reciproquement  a  la  verification  des 
papiers  et  certificats  qui  doivent  constater,  d'une  part,  que  le  vaisseau 


OFFICIAL  DOCUAIENTS  691 

de  guerre  neutre  est  autorise  a  prendre  sous  son  escorte  tel  ou  tels 
vaisseaux  marchands  de  sa  nation,  charges  de  telle  cargaison  et  pour 
tel  port;  de  I'autre  part,  que  le  vaisseau  de  guerre  de  la  Partie  bellige- 
rante  appartient  a  la  flotte  Imperiale  ou  Royale  de  Leurs  Majestes. 

4)  Cette  verification  faite,  il  n'y  aura  lieu  a  aucune  visite,  si  les 
papiers  sont  reconnus  en  regie  et  s'il  n'existe  aucun  motif  valable  de 
suspicion. 

Dans  le  cas  contraire,  le  commandant  du  vaisseau  de  guerre  neutre* 
(y  etant  duement  requis  par  le  commandant  du  vaisseau  ou  des  vais- 
seaux de  la  Puissance  belligerante)  doit  amener  et  detenir  son  convoi 
pendant  le  terns  necessaire  pour  la  visite  des  batimens  qui  le  composent, 
et  il  aura  la  faculte  de  nommer  et  deleguer  un  ou  plusieurs  officiers 
pour  assister  a  la  visite  des  dits  batimens,  laquelle  se  fera  en  sa  pre- 
sence sur  chaque  batiment  marchand  conjointement  avec  un  ou  plu- 
sieurs officiers  preposes  par  le  commandant  du  vaisseau  de  la  partie 
belligerante. 

5)  S'il  arrive  que  le  commandant  du  vaisseau  ou  des  vaisseaux  de  la 
Puissance  en  guerre,  ayant  examine  les  papiers  trouves  a  bord  et  ayant 
interroge  le  maitre  et  I'equipage  du  vaisseau,  appercevra  des  raisons 
justes  et  suffisantes  pour  detenir  le  navire  marchand  afin  de  proceder 
a  une  recherche  ulterieure,  il  notifiera  cette  intention  au  commandant 
du  vaisseau  de  convoi  qui  aura  le  pouvoir  d'ordonner  a  un  officier  de 
rester  a  bord  du  navire  ainsi  detenu  et  assister  a  I'examen  de  la  cause 
de  sa  detention. 

Le  navire  marchand  sera  amene  tout  de  suite  au  port  le  plus  proche 
et  le  plus  convenable  appartenant  a  la  Puissance  belligerante  et  la  re- 
cherche ulterieure  sera  conduite  avec  toute  la  diligence  possible. 

Article  V 

II  est  egalement  convenu  que  si  quelque  navire  marchand  ainsi  con- 
voye  etoit  detenu  sans  une  cause  juste  et  suffisante,  le  commandant 
du  vaisseau  ou  des  vaisseaux  de  la  Puissance  belligerante  sera  non 
seulement  tenu  envers  les  proprietaires  du  navire  et  de  la  cargaison  a 
une  compensation  pleine  et  parfaite  pour  toutes  pertes,  fraix,  dom- 
mages  et  depenses  occasionnees  par  une  telle  detention,  mais  il  subira 
encore  une  punition  ulterieure  pour  tout  acte  de  violence  ou  autre  faute 
qu'il  auroit  commis,  suivant  ce  que  la  nature  du  cas  pourroit  exiger. 
Par  centre,  il  ne  sera  point  permis  sous  quelque  pretexte  que  ce  soit, 
au  vaisseau  de  convoi  de  s'opposer  par  la  force  a  la  detention  du  navire 
ou  des  navires  marchands  par  le  vaisseau  ou  les  vaisseaux  de  guerre 
de  la  Puissance  belligerante,  obligation  a  laquelle  le  commandant  du 
vaisseau  de  convoi  n'est  point  tenu  envers  les  corsaires  et  armateurs. 

Article  VI 

Les  Hautes  Parties  contractantes  donneront  des  ordres  precis  et 
efficaces  pour  que  les  sentences  sur  les  prises  faites  en  mer  soient  con- 


692  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

formes  aux  regies  de  la  plus  exacte  justice  et  equite,  qu'elles  soient 
rendues  par  des  juges  non  suspects  et  qui  ne  soient  point  interesses 
dans  I'affaire  dont  il  sera  question.  Le  gouvernement  des  Etats  res- 
pectifs  veillera  a  ce  que  les  dites  sentences  soient  promptement  et 
duement  executees  selon  les  formes  prescrites. 

Et  en  cas  de  detention  mal  fondee  ou  autre  contrevention  aux  regies 
stipulees  par  le  presente  article,  il  sera  accorde  aux  proprietaires  d'un 
tel  navire  et  de  la  cargaison  des  dedommagemens  proportionnes  a  la 
perte  qu'on  leur  aura  occasionnee.  Les  regies  a  observer  pour  ces 
dedommagemens  et  pour  le  cas  de  detention  mal  fondee,  de  meme  que 
les  principes  a  suivre  pour  accelerer  les  procedures  feront  la  matiere 
d'articles  additionnels  que  les  Parties  contractantes  conviennent  d'ar- 
reter  entr'elles  et  qui  auront  meme  force  et  valeur  que  s'ils  etoient 
inseres  dans  le  present  acte. 

Pour  cet  effet  Leurs  Majestes  Imperiale  et  Britannique  s'engagent 
mutuellement  de  mettre  la  main  a  I'oeuvre  qui  doit  servir  de  comple- 
ment a  ces  stipulations  et  de  se  communiquer  sans  delai  les  vues  que 
leur  suggerera  leur  egale  sollicitude  pour  prevenir  les  moindres  sujets 
de  contestation  a  I'avenir. 

Article  VII 

Pour  obvier  a  tous  les  inconveniens  qui  peuvent  provenir  de  la 
mauvaise  foi  de  ceux  qui  se  servent  du  pavilion  d'une  nation  sans  lui 
appartenir,  on  convient  d'etablir  pour  regie  inviolable,  qu'un  batiment 
quelconque,  pour  etre  regarde  comme  propriete  du  pays  dont  il  porte  le 
pavilion,  doit  avoir  a  son  bord  le  capitaine  du  vaisseau  et  la  moitie 
de  I'equipage  des  gens  du  pays  et  les  papiers  et  passeports  en  bonne 
et  due  forme ;  mais  tout  batiment  qui  n'observe  pas  cette  regie  et  qui 
contreviendra  aux  ordonnances  publiees  a  cet  effet  perdra  tous  les 
droits  a  la  protection  des  Puissances  contractantes. 

Article  VIII 

Les  principes  et  les  mesures  adoptes  par  le  present  acte  seront  egale- 
ment  applicables  a  toutes  les  guerres  maritimes,  ou  I'une  des  deux 
Puissances  seroit  engagee,  tandis  que  I'autre  resteroit  neutre.  Ces 
stipulations  seront  en  consequence  regardees  comme  permanentes  et 
serviront  de  regie  constante  aux  Puissances  contractantes  en  matiere 
de  commerce  et  de  navigation. 

Article  IX 

S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Dannemarc  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Suede  seront  im- 
mediatement  invites  par  S.  M.  Imperiale  au  nom  des  deux  Puissances 
contractantes,  a  acceder  a  la  presente  convention  et  en  meme  tems  a 
renouveller  et  confirmer  Leurs  Traites  respectifs  de  commerce  avec 
S.  M.  Britannique,  et  Sa  dite  Majeste  s'engage  moyennant  les  actes  qui 
auront  constate  cet  accord  de  rendre  et  restituer  a  I'une  et  I'autre  de  ces 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  693 

Puissances  toutes  les  prises  qui  ont  ete  faites  sur  elles,  ainsi  que  les 
terres  et  pays  de  Leur  domination  qui  ont  ete  conquis  par  les  armes 
de  S.  M.  Britannique  depuis  la  rupture,  dans  I'etat  ou  se  trouvoient 
ces  possessions  a  I'epoque,  ou  les  troupes  de  S.  M.  Britannique  y  sont 
entrees.  Les  ordres  de  Sa  dite  Majeste  pour  la  restitution  de  ces 
prises  et  de  ces  conquetes  seront  expedies  immediatement  apres 
I'echange  des  ratifications  des  actes  par  lesquels  la  Suede  et  le  Danne- 
marc  accederont  au  present  Traite. 

Article  X 

La  presente  convention  sera  ratifiee  par  les  deux  Parties  contrac- 
tantes  et  les  ratifications  echangees  a  St.  Petersbourg  dans  I'espace  de 
deux  mois  pour  tout  delai,  a  compter  du  jour  de  la  signature. 

En  foi  de  quoi  les  plenipotentiaires  respectifs  en  ont  fait  faire  deux 
exemplaires  parfaitement  semblables,  signes  de  leurs  mains  et  y  ont 
appose  le  sceau  de  leurs  armes. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  5   (17)  juin  1801. 

(L.  S.)    N.    COMTE    DE    PaNIN 

(L.  S.)  St.  Helens 

FORMULAIRE  DES  PASSEPORTS  ET  LETTRES  DE  MER  QUI  DOIVENT  ETRE  DE- 
LIVRES    DANS    LES    AmIRAUTES    RESPECTIVES    DES    EtATS    DES    DEUX 

Hautes  Parties  contractantes  aux  vaisseaux  et  batimens 
QUI  en  sortiront  conformement  a  l'article  IV  DU  present 
Traite 

Faisons  savoir  que  Nous  avons  donne  conge  et  permission  a 
N.  .  .  .  de  la  ville  ou  lieu  de  N.  .  .  .  maitre  ou  conducteur 
du  vaisseau  N.  .  .  .  appartenant  a  N.  .  .  .  du  port  de 
N.  .  .  .  tonneaux  ou  environ,  qui  se  trouve  a  present  au  port  et 
Havre  de  N.  .  .  .  de  s'en  aller  a  N.  .  .  .  charge  de  N.  .  .  . 
pour  le  compte  de  N.  .  .  .  apres  que  la  visite  de  son  vaisseau  aura 
ete  faite  avant  son  depart,  selon  la  maniere  usitee,  par  les  officiers  pro- 
poses a  cet  eflfet  et  le  dit  N.  .  .  .  ou  tel  autre  fonde  de  pouvoirs 
pour  le  remplacer  sera  tenu  de  produire,  dans  chaque  port  ou  Havre, 
oil  il  entrera  avec  le  dit  vaisseau,  aux  officiers  du  lieu  le  present  conge 
et  de  porter  le  pavilion  de  N.  .  .  .  durant  son  voyage.  En  foi  de 
quoi  etc. 

Article  Separe  et  Secret 

S.  M.  Britannique  voulant  donner  un  temoignage  non  equivoque  de 
la  confiance  qu'elle  met  dans  les  soins  magnanimes  de  S.  M.  I'Empe- 
reur  de  toutes  les  Russies  pour  le  retablissement  de  la  paix  dans  le 
Nord,  et  les  dispositions  manifestees  par  les  Cours  de  Stockholm  et  de 
Copenhague  donnant  tout  lieu  d'experer  que  ces  soins  seront  couronnes 
d'une  prompte  et  heureuse  issue,  Sa  dite  Majeste  Britannique  s'engage 


694  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

de  donner  immediatement  des  ordres  pour  effectuer,  dans  le  plus  court 
delai  possible,  le  retour  de  son  escadre  de  la  mer  Baltique  dans  celle 
du  Nord. 

Cet  article  separe  et  secret  aura  la  meme  force  et  valeur  etc. 

En  foi  de  quoi  etc. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  5  (17)  juin  1801. 

(L.  S.)    N.    COMTE    DE    PaNIN 

(L.  S.)   St.  Helens 

Article  I  Separe 

Les  intentions  pures  et  magnanimes  de  S.  M.  I'Empereur  de  toutes 
les  Russies  I'ayant  deja  porte  a  restituer  les  navires  et  les  biens  des 
sujets  britanniques  qui  avaient  ete  sequestres  en  Russie,  Sa  dite  Majeste 
confirme  cette  disposition  dans  toute  son  etendue,  et  S.  M.  Britannique 
s'engage  egalement  a  donner  immediatement  des  ordres  pour  faire 
lever  tout  sequestre  sur  les  proprietes  russes,  danoises  et  suedoises 
detenues  dans  les  ports  de  la  Grande  Bretagne. 

Et  pour  constater  d'autant  mieux  son  desir  sincere  de  terminer  a 
I'amiable  les  differends  survenus  entre  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  les  Cours 
du  Nord  et  pour  qu'aucun  nouvel  incident  ne  puisse  apporter  des  en- 
traves  a  cette  oeuvre  salutaire,  S.  M.  Britannique  s'engage  de  donner 
des  ordres  aux  commandans  de  ses  forces  de  terre  et  de  mer  pour  que 
I'armistice  actuellement  subsistant  avec  les  Cours  de  Suede  et  de 
Dannemark  soit  prolonge  jusqu'au  terme  de  trois  mois  a  dater  de  ce 
jour,  et  S.  M.  I'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  guide  par  les  memes 
motifs  s'engage  au  nom  de  ses  allies  de  faire  maintenir  egalement  cet 
armistice  pendant  le  susdit  terme. 

Cet  article  separe  aura  la  meme  force  et  valeur  etc. 

En  foi  de  quoi  etc. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  5  (17)  juin  1801. 

(L.  S.)     N.    COMTE    DE    PaNIN 

(L.  S.)   St.  Helens 

Article  II  Separe 

Les  differends  et  mesentendus  qui  subsistaient  entre  S.  M.  I'Em- 
pereur de  toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume  uni  de  la 
Grande  Bretagne  et  de  I'lrlande  etant  ainsi  termines  a  I'avenir  I'har- 
monie  et  la  bonne  intelligence  que  les  deux  Hautes  Parties  contrac- 
tantes  ont  a  coeur  de  consolider,  Leurs  dites  Majestes  confirment  de 
nouveau  par  la  presente  convention  le  Traite  de  commerce  du  10  (21) 
fevrier  1797  dont  toutes  les  stipulations  sont  rappelees  ici  pour  etre 
maintenues  dans  toute  leur  etendue. 

Cet  article  separe  aura  la  meme  force  et  valeur  etc. 

En  foi  de  quoi  etc. 

Fait  a  St.  Petersbourg,  le  5  (17)  juin  1801. 

(L.  S.)    N.    CoMTE    DE    PaNIN 

(L.  S.)   St.  Helens 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  695 

Additional  Articles  and  Declaration  to  the  Convention  of  June  17, 
1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia  relative  to  Neutral 
Trade,  October  20,  ISOr 

Articles  Additionnels 

Comme  par  I'article  VI  de  la  Convention,  conclue  le  5  (17)  juin 
1801  entre  S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  Britannique, 
il  a  ete  stipule  que  les  deux  hautes  Parties  contractantes  arreteraient 
entr'elles  des  Articles  additionnels,  qui  fixeraient  les  regies  et  les  prin- 
cipes  a  suivre  tant  pour  I'acceleration  des  procedures  judiciaires  sur 
des  prises  faites  en  mer,  que  pour  les  dedommagemens  qui  seraient  dus 
aux  proprietaires  des  navires  et  des  cargaisons  neutres,  dans  le  cas 
d'une  detention  mal  fondee,  Leurs  dites  Majestes  ont  nomme  et  auto- 
rise  a  cet  effet  savoir : 

S.  M.  I'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  sr.  Alexandre  prince  de 
Kourakin,  Son  Vice-Chancelier,  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Ministre  du 
Conseil  d'Etat,  chambellan  actuel,  grand  chancelier  de  I'ordre  souve- 
rain  de  St.  Jean  de  Jerusalem  et  chevalier  des  ordres  de  Russie,  de 
St.  Andre,  de  St.  Alexandre  Nevsky,  etc. 

et  le  sr.  Victor  comte  de  Kotschoubey,  Son  Conseiller  prive  actuel, 
Ministre  au  Departement  des  affaires  etrangeres,  senateur,  chambellan 
actuel  et  chevalier  des  ordres,  de  St.  Alexandre  Nevsky,  de  St.  Vladi- 
mir de  la  seconde  classe  etc. ; 

et  S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume  uni  de  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  I'lrlande, 
Alleyne  Lord  Baron  St.  Helens,  Paire  du  dit  Royaume  uni,  du  Conseil 
prive  de  Sa  dite  Majeste  et  son  Ambassadeur  extraordinaire  et  pleni- 
potentiaire  pres  S.  M.  I'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies; 

lesquels  en  vertu  de  leurs  pleinpouvoirs  respectifs  sont  convenus 
des  Articles  suivants. 

Article  I 

En  cas  de  detention  malfondee  ou  autre  contravention  aux  regies 
convenues,  il  sera  accorde  aux  proprietaires  du  navire  ainsi  detenu  et 
de  sa  cargaison,  pour  chaque  jour  de  retard,  des  dedommagemens  pro- 
portionnes  a  la  perte  qu'ils  auraient  soufferte,  en  raison  du  fret  du  dit 
navire  et  de  la  nature  de  sa  cargaison. 

Article  II 

Si  les  Ministres  de  I'une  des  hautes  Parties  contractantes  ou  autres 
personnes  accreditees  de  sa  part  aupres  de  la  Puissance  belligerante 
j.»ortaient  des  plaintes  contre  les  jugemens  qui  auraient  ete  rendus  sur 
les  dites  prises  par  les  Cours  des  Amirautes  respectives,  I'affaire  sera 
evoquee  en  Russie  au  Senat  dirigeant  et  dans  la  Grande  Bretagne  au 
Conseil  du  Roi. 


^F.  Martens,  Traites  et  Conventions  conclus  par  la  Russie,  vol.  11,  pp.  41,  44. 


696  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Article  III 

Des  deux  cotes  on  examinera  soigneusement  si  les  regies  et  precau- 
tions stipulees  dans  la  presente  Convention  ont  ete  observees,  ce  qui 
devra  etre  fait  avec  toute  la  celerite  possible.  Les  deux  hautes  Parties 
contractantes  s'engageant  de  plus  a  adopter  les  moyens  les  plus  effi- 
caces,  pour  que  les  jugements  de  Leurs  differents  tribunaux  sur  les 
prises  faites  en  mer  ne  soient  sujets  a  aucun  delai  inutile. 

Article  IV 

Les  effets  en  litige  ne  pourront  etre  vendus,  ni  decharges  avant  le 
jugement  definitif  sans  une  necessite  reelle  et  pressante,  qui  aura  ete 
constatee  devant  la  Cour  de  TAmiraute  et  moyennant  une  Commission 
autorisee  a  cet  effet,  et  il  ne  sera  point  permis  aux  capteurs  de  rien  re- 
tirer  ni  enlever  de  leur  propre  autorite  d'un  vaisseau  ainsi  detenu. 

Ces  Articles  additionnels  faisant  partie  de  la  Convention,  signee  le 
5  (17)  juin  1801  aux  noms  de  Leurs  Majestes  Imperiale  de  toutes  les 
Russies  et  Britannique,  auront  la  meme  force  et  valeur  que  s'ils  etaient 
inseres  mot  a  mot  dans  la  dite  Convention. 

En  foi  de  quoi  Nous  soussignes,  munis  des  pleinpouvoirs  de  Leurs 
dites  Majestes,  avons  signe  en  Leurs  noms  les  presents  Articles  addi- 
tionnels et  y  avons  appose  le  cachet  de  nos  armes. 
Fait  a  Moscou,  le  8  (20)  octobre  1801. 

(L.  S.)   Le  Prince  de  Kourakin 
(L.  S.)  Le  Comte  de  Kotschoubey 
(L.  S.)   St.  Helens 

Declaration 

Pour  prevenir  qu'il  ne  s'eleve  aucun  sujet  de  doute  ni  de  mesentendu 
sur  le  contenu  de  la  seconde  section  de  1' Article  III  de  la  Convention 
conclue  le  5  (17)  iuin  1801  entre  S.  M.  TEmpereur  de  toutes  les 
Russies  et  S.  M.  Britannique,  les  dites  hautes  Parties  contractantes  sont 
convenues  et  declarent  que  la  liberte  du  commerce  et  de  la  navigation, 
accordee  par  le  dit  Article  aux  sujets  de  la  Puissance  neutre,  ne  les 
autorise  point  a  transporter  directement,  en  temps  de  guerre,  les  mar- 
chandises  et  les  denrees  des  colonies  de  la  Puissance  belligerante  dans 
les  possessions  continentales,  ni  vice  versa  de  la  Metropole  dans  les 
colonies  ennemies,  mais  que  les  dits  sujets  doivent  jouir  neanmoins 
pour  ce  commerce  des  memes  avantages  et  facilites.  dont  jouissent  les 
nations  les  plus  favorisees  et  commement  les  Etats-Unis  de  TAmerique. 
En  foi  de  quoi  etc. 
A  Moscou,  le  8  (20)  octobre  1801. 

(L.  S.)  Le  Prince  de  Kourakin 
(L.  S.)  Le  Comte  de  Kotschoubey 
(L.  S.)   St.  Helens 


OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS  697 

Act  of  Accession  of  the  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway  to  the  Con- 
vention of  June  17,  1801,  between  Great  Britain  and  Russia, 
relative  to  Neutral  Trade,  October  23,  180  P 

Nom  de  la  tres  Sainte  et  indivisible  Trinite. 

S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et  S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume 
uni  de  le  Grande  Bretagne  et  de  I'lrlande,  ayant  par  une  suite  de  leur 
desir  mutuel  de  terminer  de  la  maniere  la  plus  equitable  les  differends 
survenus  entre  elles  et  encore  entre  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  les  autres 
Puissances  maritimes  du  Nord,  au  sujet  de  la  navigation  de  leurs 
sujets  respectifs,  conclu  une  Convention,  signee  par  leurs  plenipoten- 
tiaires  a  St.-Petersbourg,  le  5  (17)  juin  de  la  presente  annee,  et  leur 
commune  sollicitude  ne  s'etendant  pas  seulement  a  prevenir  de  sem- 
blables  altercations  a  I'avenir,  et  les  troubles  qui  pourraient  en  etre  la 
suite,  par  la  fixation  et  Tapplication  a  leurs  Monarchies  respectives 
des  principes  et  des  droits  de  la  neutralite ;  mais  encore  a  en  rendre 
le  systeme  commun  et  egalement  avantageux  aux  Puissances  mari- 
times du  Nord,  il  a  ete  stipule  par  I'Article  IX  de  cette  Convention,  que 
S.  M.  Danoise  seroit  invitee  par  S.  M.  I'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Rus- 
sies, au  nom  des  Hautes  Parties  contractantes,  a  acceder  a  la  dite  Con- 
vention, et  S.  M.  le  Roi  de  Dannemark  et  de  Norvege,  animee  des 
meme  sentimens  de  paix  et  de  conciliation,  desirant  d'eloigner  tout  ce 
qui  a  pu  et  pourroit  a  I'avenir  alterer  la  bonne  intelligence  entre  Elle 
et  S.  M.  Britannique,  et  de  retablir  cette  ancienne  harmonie  entiere- 
ment  sur  I'ancien  pied,  ainsi  que  I'etat  des  choses,  tel  qu'il  subsistait 
par  ses  Traites  et  Conventions  avec  la  Grande  Bretagne,  Sa  dite 
Majeste  n'a  point  hesite  a  se  rendre  a  I'invitation,  qui  lui  a  ete  faite 
d'acceder  a  la  dite  Convention,  signee  a  St.-Petersbourg,  le  5  (17)  juin 
dernier. 

Pour  parvenir  a  ce  but  salutaire  et  donner  a  cet  Acte  d'accession  et 
a  I'acceptation  de  S.  M.  Imperiale  toute  I'authenticite  dont  il  est  sus- 
ceptible et  le  revetir  des  solemnites  d'usage,  leurs  dites  Majestes  ont 
nomme  pour  leurs  plenipotentiaires,  savoir : 

S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies,  le  sieur  Alexandre  prince 
de  Kourakin,  son  Vice-Chancelier,  Conseiller  prive  actuel,  Ministre 
du  Conseil  d'Etat  etc. 

et  le  sieur  Victor  comte  de  Kotschoubey,  son  Conseiller  prive  actuel, 
Ministre  au  Departement  des  Affaires  etrangeres,  Senateur,  etc. 

et  S.  M.  Danoise,  le  sieur  Frangois  Xavier  Joseph  comte  de  Danes- 
kiold-Lowendal  et  du  Saint  Empire,  chevalier  de  I'Ordre  de  St.  Jean 
de  Jerusalem,  General-Major  a  son  service  et  Chef  de  son  corps  de  la 
marine  et  son  Envoye  extraordinaire  et  Ministre  plenipotentiaire 
aupres  de  S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies ; 

lesquels  apres  avoir  echange  entre  eux  leurs  pleinpouvoirs,  trouves 
en  bonne  et  due  forme,  ont  conclu  et  arrete  que  tons  les  Articles  de  la 


^F.  Martens.  Traites  ct  Conventions  conclus  par  la  Rtissie,  vol.  11,  p.  45. 


698  THE  ARMED  NEUTRALITIES  OF  1780  AND  1800 

Convention,  conclue  entre  S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les  Russies  et 
S.  M.  le  Roi  du  Royaume  uni  de  la  Grande  Bretagne  et  de  I'Irlande,  le 
5  (17)  juin  de  la  presente  annee,  ainsi  que  ceux  separes  qui  y  sont 
joints  et  ceux  additionnels  arretes  le  8  (20)  octobre  1801,  entre  les 
plenipotentiaires  de  Leurs  dites  Majestes,  en  toutes  leurs  clauses,  con- 
ditions et  obligations,  doivent  etre  regardes  comme  s'ils  etaient  faits, 
convenus  et  arretes  de  mot  a  mot  entre  S.  M.  Imperiale  de  toutes  les 
Russies  et  S.  M.  Danoise  elles-memes,  en  qualite  de  Parties  principales 
contractantes,  aux  differences  pres,  qui  resultent  de  la  nature  des 
Traites  et  engagemens  antecedemment  subsistans  entre  I'Angleterre  et 
le  Dannemarc,  dont  la  continuite  et  le  renouvellement  sont  assures  par 
la  susdite  Convention,  et  avec  la  stipulation  expresse  de  la  part  des 
Hautes  Parties  contractantes  et  accedentes,  que  la  stipulation  de  I'Arti- 
cle  II  des  Articles  additionnels,  signes  a  Moscou  le  8  (20)  octobre 
1801,  par  les  plenipotentiaires  de  Leurs  Majestes  Imperiale  et  Britan- 
nique,  qui  fixe  que  les  jugemens  en  dernier  ressort  des  causes  en  litige 
seront  evoques  en  Russie  au  Senat  dirigeant  et  dans  la  Grande  Bre- 
tagne au  Conseil  du  Roi,  doit  s'entendre  par  rapport  au  Dannemarc, 
que  les  dits  jugemens  y  seront  evoques  par  devant  le  tribunal  supreme 
de  ce  Royaume. 

Afin  de  prevenir  toute  inexactitude,  il  a  ete  convenu,  que  la  dite 
Convention,  signee  le  5  (17)  juin,  les  x^rticles  separes  y  annexes  et 
ceux  additionnels,  arretes  le  8  (20)  octobre  1801,  seraient  inseres  ici 
de  mot  a  mot  et  ainsi  qu'il  suit. 

[Ici  suit  le  texte  de  la  Convention  du  5  (//)  juin  i8oi  avec  tons 
ses  annexes.^ 

En  consequence  de  tout  quoi,  Sa  Majeste  le  Roi  de  Dannemarc  ac- 
cede, a  la  dite  Convention  et  aux  dits  Articles  separes  et  additionnels, 
tels  qu'ils  sont  transcrits  ci-dessus,  sans  aucune  reserve,  ni  exception, 
declarant  et  promettant  d'en  accomplir  toutes  les  clauses,  conditions 
et  obligations,  en  ce  qui  la  concerne,  et  S.  M.  L'Empereur  de  toutes  les 
Russies  accepte  la  presente  accession  de  S.  M.  Danoise  et  promet 
pareillement  d'en  accomplir  a  son  egard,  sans  aucune  reserve,  ni  excep- 
tion, tons  les  Articles,  clauses  et  conditions  contenus  dans  la  dite 
Convention,  les  dits  Articles  separes  et  additionnels  inserres  ci-dessus. 

Les  ratifications  du  present  Acte  d'accession  et  d'acceptation  seront 
echangees,  dans  I'espace  de  deux  mois,  ou  plutot  si  faire  se  peut,  et 
seront  en  meme  tems  executees  le  plus  promptement  possible,  les  stipu- 
lations de  la  dite  Convention,  en  egard  au  retablissement  plein  et  entier 
de  I'etat  des  choses,  tel  qu'il  existait  avant  I'epoque  des  mesentendus 
qui  se  trouvent  heureusement  leves  dans  le  moment  actuel. 

En  foi  de  quoi  etc. 

Fait  a  Moscou,  le  11  (23)  octobre  1801. 

(L.  S.)  Le  Prince  de  Kourakin 

(L.  S.)   Le  Comte  de  Kotschoubey 

(L.  S.)  F.  X.  J.  Comte  de  Danneskiold-Lowendal 


^^^n% 


>p 


w^^ 


% 


I    3 


•iju'jftviur^ 


O        u- 


i^ 


:^ 


"^/JaiAlNfl-JWV^ 


I?       £ 


^ 


iJUilJVJiv^ 


^      ^.OFCAi!F0/?;i^j 


c-i 


^^ 


vr 


;ji  i.g 


.^WEUNIVER% 


o 
50 


o 


^ 


f^      ^^Aavaan#       ^fiuawsov^     ■^iOAiNftiW^^ 


>• 

l^ 

^ 


.1 

4, 


Cfc  5         DC    f*        ' 

—  ■    fe        — 

^    ^  >      I-     5        % 


^     '^/ia3AiNn-3ftv* 


^^•UBRARYQ<- 


^x. 


^OFCAUFO% 


-jxeXllBRARYQc. 

s  ! 


^4 


'x©ii\fS> 


^OF-CAUFO/?^ 


5=: 


^ 


<- 


> 


Be 
aa 
=3 


<J3UDKVS0# 


gr— -^^J     ^ 


o 


5s.   # 


^5MFIINIVER% 


5^  C3 


fiCi 


'^^ij:iiivj-iii-^'     '>^jjnvj-ju 


^^^  ^ 


5^0F-CAIIFO% 


^^ 


>^ 


^^WE•UNIVER%.       .^lOSANCElfj'^ 


s 


<riU3NVS0VV 


V/iiiiAJNiri^'^'' 


^      .^^ 


v.in<:.^A!rFttr, 


if': 


v.h-iC 


V  ifiC.iviritrf. 


..i^OF-CMIFO;?,!', 


S" 


i^^'    *^^AWiian-i^ 


t  j   -r,  V_; 

":  /     Q  U_ 


L  006  671   156  5 


^. 


£-> 


^^Aavaan# 


^lOSA.%Flfj> 


-< 


=  (  <i  y — i 

%a3AlNrt-3\\V* 


-v^HIBRARY^/^       ^\tLiBKAHY-^/^ 


%OJI'IV3-J0'^      ^<!/0JnV3JO'^ 


^OFCAllFOff^ 


K^    ^f-f^Aim^^ 


$r)|    '  MHL^OU™f^^..FIEGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILir 


<riU3NV-S01^ 


^WEUNIVERS7a 


^lOSAfJCElfj> 

(5  >■ 

'—  so 


^IUBRARY(9/. 


O'i^      %0JnVD-JO^         <rii30NVS0\^       %J13AINnmV^  %0JI1V3-J0^      %0JI1V3-J0'^ 


-^tUBRARYOc. 
§  4   ir-^  ^ 


«»^^      ,^.OF-CAllF0ff^ 


<A\^E-UN!VER% 


^lOSAfJCElfX^^ 


^OF-CAIIFOJ?^ 


ASsKmOJiMr 


^lOSANCElfr^        ^l-UBRARYQ^ 


Ng    IvAibr 


o 


...:,jHfi-3ViV^      \^myi^ 


3  1  ir*'  ^ 


^WEUNIVER%      ^lOSANCEier^ 

-^nmm-'iss^     %a3A'^'^^'^' 


=«  =; 


-^i^^^.iHn■3ftv 


so 


^OFCAIIFOI?^     ^OFCAL!F0% 


AWEUNIVERS/a       A^IOS 


^^Aavaani^      ^^Aavaaiv^        ^riuoNvsoi^ 


O        u_ 

=0      c 


-< 


^lUBRARYO^ 


,\WEUNIVER%      ^lOSMEl^^ 


i^.\lii.  wnm.nu//7.  ,j,v. -»>-> 

o'^'    ^^mmy\^      ^cmoHvsoi^     %a3AiNft-3WV' 


%,      ^OFCAIIFO/?^        ^5J(\E1 


^t•UBRARYQ^,      ^s^^L'BRARY/!?/;^ 


